- Atlas Copco Airpower N.V. v. Kaeser Kompressoren SESome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2015-01421 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–12, and 14–20 are unpatentable; claim 13 was not shown unpatentable, because White did not teach the claimed input-compressor control.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based upon our review of Dunne and the supporting testimony of Dr. Knaebel, whose opinion, in this regard, we afford persuasive weight, we agree with Petitioner that Dunne discloses each element of claim 1, including inherently disclosing two alternative embodiments wherein a pressure increasing device is provided within the connecting line to increase pressure of the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line. In particular, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Dunne teaches that the compression required by paragraph 26 may optionally be provided in either stream 7 or 9, shown in Dunne’s Figure 1. Each of those streams may be seen as “going to the adsorption zone” and providing an opportunity for compression “prior to contacting the adsorbent wheel,” as required by Dunne. Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. Further, compression in any of those streams is consistent with the teaching in paragraph 27 of Dunne that compression may occur “prior to or after the condenser on the regeneration or cooling effluent,” i.e., Figure 1 shows that compression occurs in stream 7 prior to reaching the condenser and in stream 9 after the condenser, wherein each of those streams may be considered a regeneration effluent as they flow from the regeneration sector.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not provide a statement describing a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nor does Patent Owner provide the testimony of a declarant purported to be such a person. Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we find that Petitioner’s statement regarding the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art is sound and supported by the evidence. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description. Moreover, we recognize Dr. Knaebel as a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“The Specification explains that the pressure increasing device is provided to “increase the pressure of the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line.” Ex. 1001, 3:46–48. The Specification also explains that the pressure increasing device “may be a mechanical compressor, in particular a compressor and/or a fan and/or a pump and/or a side-channel compressor and/or a turbo compressor, e.g., a radial compressor.” Ex. 1001, 5:46–49. Independent claim 1 describes the connecting line by reciting, in part, “the second discharging line being in communication with the second feeding line and thus forming a connecting line.” Based upon our consideration of those descriptions and the Specification as a whole, we construe the phrase “a pressure increasing device provided within the connecting line” broadly to mean a device, such as a mechanical compressor, in particular a compressor, fan, pump, side-channel compressor, and/or a turbo compressor, e.g., a radial compressor, provided within the line formed between the second discharging line and the second feeding line, wherein the device increases pressure of gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based upon our review of Dunne and the supporting testimony of Dr. Knaebel, whose opinion, in this regard, we afford persuasive weight, we agree with Petitioner that Dunne discloses each element of claim 1, including inherently disclosing two alternative embodiments wherein a pressure increasing device is provided within the connecting line to increase pressure of the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line. In particular, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Dunne teaches that the compression required by paragraph 26 may optionally be provided in either stream 7 or 9, shown in Dunne’s Figure 1. Each of those streams may be seen as “going to the adsorption zone” and providing an opportunity for compression “prior to contacting the adsorbent wheel,” as required by Dunne. Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. Further, compression in any of those streams is consistent with the teaching in paragraph 27 of Dunne that compression may occur “prior to or after the condenser on the regeneration or cooling effluent,” i.e., Figure 1 shows that compression occurs in stream 7 prior to reaching the condenser and in stream 9 after the condenser, wherein each of those streams may be considered a regeneration effluent as they flow from the regeneration sector. Further, Petitioner has shown persuasively, and Patent Owner has not argued otherwise, that streams 7 and 9 depicted in Dunne’s Figure 1 make up a “connecting line in which a condenser 8 is provided” as required by claim 1. Pet. 28–30. Thus, we determine that Dunne’s inherent disclosure of providing a pressure increasing device in either of streams 7 or 9, results in two embodiments of the invention which necessarily meet all of the limitations in claim 1, including providing a pressure increasing device within the connecting line to increase the gas flowing from the second discharging line to the second feeding line.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,349,054 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,349,054 - Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01451 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution: it exercised discretion as to claims 43–46, 49, 50, 62–69, and 72, and found no reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 55–58.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition. Patent Owner argues that we should decline to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition raises the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office. Prelim. Resp. 19–26. In particular, Patent Owner contends that each of the claims in the reexamination was rejected based on Eddison, under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or in combination with Jewkes under § 103(a), and that Petitioner relies upon Jewkes again under § 102(b) in its Petition. Id. at 23–26. Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why the references that form the bases for Petitioner’s challenge here are not the same or substantially similar prior art to that presented during the reexamination or why the arguments are not the same or substantially similar to those presented previously to the Office. Eddison and Jewkes were relied upon in the reexamination. See id. at 141–60 (Office Action (mailed Aug. 25, 2014)). Additionally, Tandberg was presented to the Office in conjunction with the original prosecution of the ’817 patent. See Ex. 2003; Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Patent Owner makes a valid point. Section 1.530(k) of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides: “Amendments not effective until certificate. Although the Office actions will treat proposed amendments as though they have been entered, the proposed amendments will not be effective until the reexamination certificate is issued and published.” This places us in a difficult position. If Patent Owner ultimately succeeds in the appeal of the reexamination, a certificate will issue and the amendments to claim 43 and its dependents will be “effective.” See id.; see Ex. 1007, 166 (showing the amendments to claim 43). Yet Petitioner provides no analysis of the amended limitations of claim 43. See, e.g., Pet. 16. Alternatively, if Patent Owner is unsuccessful in its appeal to the Federal Circuit, claim 43 and its dependents, as challenged in the reexamination, will be declared unpatentable. In either circumstance, any review we undertake of the unamended version of claim 43, and the claims depending therefrom, will be for naught. Accordingly, in light of the above circumstances, reviewing these claims on the record presented would waste judicial resources as well as the resources of the parties.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,732,817 - Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01450 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), citing overlapping prior art and arguments, the pending reexamination appeal, and resource conservation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“D. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Section 325(d) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides: “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Although Petitioner and Patent Owner present proposed constructions for several claim terms, no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. Pet. 15–21; Prelim. Resp. 10–23.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerGranted
“On August 29, 2016, Petitioner requested, via electronic mail, to file a motion to correct its identification of the real party in interest in this proceeding. In particular, Petitioner requested the addition of Baker Hughes Incorporated as a real party in interest. Petitioner indicated that Patent Owner would not oppose its request. In a responsive email on September 29, 2016, we authorized Petitioner to file a motion to correct the identified real party in interest. On October 4, 2016, Petitioner filed an Updated Mandatory Notice in which Petitioner stated that it “moves the Board to allow correction of Petitioner’s Real Part in Interest (‘RPI’) disclosure.” Paper 8, 1. Although Petitioner did not file a motion to correct as it had requested, we treat its updated mandatory notice as such and hereby grant Petitioner’s request. Accordingly, Baker Hughes Incorporated is a real party in interest in this proceeding as well.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,732,817 - Monosol RX, LLC v. Arius Two, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2016 · IPR2014-00376 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Monosol’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–7 not shown unpatentable because the request showed no prejudicial APA error in the Board’s multilayer construction of “bioerodable device.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“At the outset, we note that the premise of Monosol’s argument—that we changed theories in our Final Written Decision—is incorrect. Our Decision on Institution did not articulate a construction for “bioerodable device,” or even state that we were not providing an express construction because the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controlled. Rather, we noted that an explicit construction was not necessary at that stage of the proceeding, because it was not material to resolving the question before us at the time: whether Monosol had established the reasonable likelihood of success required by 35 U.S.C. § 314 to institute trial. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. In this sense, our determination in the Decision on Institution was similar to a trial court’s ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction, and the” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In instituting trial, we construed various terms in the challenged claims, but determined that other terms, such as “bioerodable device,” did” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for patent owner
“Our denial of institution on particular grounds was based on the fact that we had determined to institute trial on other grounds, and Monosol had not explained why the grounds (such as anticipation by Heiber, or obviousness over Keith combined with Heiber or Schiraldi) were sufficiently distinctive from the instituted grounds. Dec. on Inst. 16, 20 n.2. We, therefore, exercised our discretion to deny these grounds as redundant of the instituted grounds. Id.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“construction of “bioerodable device” earlier—it would have presented evidence that the Heiber and Schiraldi references met that limitation. But Monosol could not have done so post-institution, because neither Heiber nor Schiraldi were part of any ground on which trial was instituted, and could not form any basis for our patentability determination. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Any claim or issue not included in the authorization for review is not part of the trial.”). Relying on non-instituted prior art in the Final Written Decision— and thereby introducing factual assertions into the proceeding at the end of trial—would trade Monosol’s alleged APA violation for an actual one. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,579,019 - Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00802 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting inter partes review.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The 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. Specifically for rehearing requests of decisions on institution, “a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s second argument for rehearing involves the discretion we have under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) not to institute review if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In our Decision, we declined to exercise our discretion to deny. Dec. on Inst. 14. One factor behind our decision that we highlighted was that the grounds asserted against the ’186 patent were going forward already in a related proceeding (namely, the grounds in IPR2016-00802) against a very similar patent. Id. As such, we saw little substantive burden in proceeding on the merits. Id. Further, denying institution here causes additional inefficiencies, as it leaves to the district court issues that we are going to resolve on a closely related patent. Id. Patent Owner points to other cases having different facts in which petitions were denied. See Req. Reh’g 9–11. Different facts will give different results, especially in a multi-factor test such as that involved in § 325(d). Patent Owner does not address any facts that would make us reconsider our Decision. Patent Owner then points out that more cases were filed against it after this particular proceeding was filed (Req. 11–14); this is immaterial as to our decision regarding this proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (referring to “prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s first argument for rehearing is directed to whether the Petition provided sufficient notice to Patent Owner regarding the basis of the unpatentability challenge. Req. 2–7. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s ground was to modify one reference with another as a “wholesale” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,044,056 - Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00801 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Willis Electric’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place because it found no abuse of discretion in its notice analysis or decision not to deny under § 325(d).
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The 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. Specifically for rehearing requests of decisions on institution, “a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“we have under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) not to institute review if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In our Decision, we declined to exercise our discretion to deny. Dec. on Inst. 14. One factor behind our decision that we highlighted was that the grounds asserted against the ’186 patent were going forward already in a related proceeding (namely, the grounds in IPR2016-00802) against a very similar patent. Id. As such, we saw little substantive burden in proceeding on the merits. Id. Further, denying institution here causes additional inefficiencies, as it leaves to the district court issues that we are going to resolve on a closely related patent. Id. Patent Owner points to other cases having different facts in which petitions were denied. See Req. Reh’g 9–11. Different facts will give different results, especially in a multi-factor test such as that involved in § 325(d). Patent Owner does not address any facts that would make us reconsider our Decision. Patent Owner then points out that more cases were filed against it after this particular proceeding was filed (Req. 11–14); this is immaterial as to our decision regarding this proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (referring to “prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,454,187 - Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00800 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting review after rejecting its notice and § 325(d) arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The 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. Specifically for rehearing requests of decisions on institution, “a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“we have under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) not to institute review if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In our Decision, we declined to exercise our discretion to deny. Dec. on Inst. 14. One factor behind our decision that we highlighted was that the grounds asserted against the ’186 patent were going forward already in a related proceeding (namely, the grounds in IPR2016-00802) against a very similar patent. Id. As such, we saw little substantive burden in proceeding on the merits. Id. Further, denying institution here causes additional inefficiencies, as it leaves to the district court issues that we are going to resolve on a closely related patent. Id. Patent Owner points to other cases having different facts in which petitions were denied. See Req. Reh’g 9–11. Different facts will give different results, especially in a multi-factor test such as that involved in § 325(d). Patent Owner does not address any facts that would make us reconsider our Decision. Patent Owner then points out that more cases were filed against it after this particular proceeding was filed (Req. 11–14); this is immaterial as to our decision regarding this proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (referring to “prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,454,186 - Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01248 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5, 20, 22–25, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 2–4, 6–8, and 19 were not proven unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is attempting to improperly limit the construction. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparison” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the “comparison” is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 9. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparison” that we adopted. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2011 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Here, we agree with Petitioner that the plain language of the claim is sufficient and no construction is necessary for this term. The claim language already establishes that there are two user profiles, each is associated with a particular and different mobile device, and the profiles include “information to alter an operating condition of the network device according to a preference of a [first/second] user.” The claim already addresses what attributes the user profile must have. We see no support in the claim language or specification for Patent Owner’s additional requirements that the profiles be “individual” and “include information unique to each user.”” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“v. Summary as to Claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 Patent Owner raises no evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in this case. Thus, weighing the evidence of obviousness that is before us, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 would have been obvious over the combination of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).4 Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the features from Shamoon in addition to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages. 4 We understand Patent Owner to be arguing both that the references teach away from the combination generally and teach away because, in particular, the combination would change the principle of operation of the system. PO Resp. 33–36. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work). The lack of teaching away is confirmed by Yamashita’s disclosure of an embodiment requiring manual interaction. See Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1006, 22:31–51). Indeed, although Patent Owner contends that automatic functionality is “not the focus or main purpose of Shamoon,” PO Resp. 35, Shamoon’s system demonstrates that automatic functionality can be combined with manual functionality to result in a working system. See Ex. 1007, 8:36–45. As for Patent Owner’s contentions that Yamashita “abandoned bi- directional communication” (PO Resp. 35), we find no support in the cited portions of Yamashita for these contentions. Although Yamashita does tout the benefits of its automatic control system, the cited portions of Yamashita are silent about the advantages or disadvantages of “bi-directional communication.” As for Patent Owner’s arguments about substantial reconstruction and redesign (PO Resp. 36 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 91)), we do not find the testimony or argument persuasive. Yamashita’s control terminal and mobile terminals already has built in communication abilities (Ex. 1006, 11:31–38), and we find Dr. Selker’s testimony persuasive that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add the ability to communicate the thermostat reading to verify that Yamashita’s automatic control worked. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207. As for Patent Owner’s allegation that the combination with Shamoon would change Yamashita’s principle of operation, we disagree. Yamashita would continue to work as before; the messages, rules, and control information would continue operate in the same manner. Shamoon would only add additional functionality to allow for an improved user interface and two-way communication. Where the device would operate on the same principles as before, the combination does not change the principle of operation. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332 (noting Ratti inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before”). As Petitioner explains, Shamoon demonstrates that its known techniques have been used to improve similar devices in similar ways. We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207, 213. Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,626,344 - Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01251 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–14, 16, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 15, 17, and 18 were not proven unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s further narrowing of our construction is improperly limiting. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparing” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the comparison is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 10. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparing” that we adopted; rather, each of them emphasizes determining similarities as well. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2002 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2006 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”). The specification does not compel a different understanding. The” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“that the parties’ actual dispute is twofold. First, the parties dispute whether the mobile device must be able to transmit location information to the site regardless of whether the proximity setting is enabled or disabled. See Reply 8–9; PO Resp. 14–15. Second, Patent Owner argues that the entire process of proximity detection must be automatic. PO Resp. 14. As we explain below, we agree with Petitioner that this term does not require that the mobile device continue to send location reports if the proximity setting is not enabled, whereas we disagree with Petitioner that the proximity setting is limited to enabling or disabling the ability to send location reports. Instead, we find the specification supports a broader construction. In particular, we find that the specification states that “[f]or example, a user may enable proximity detection using proximity detection selector 1036 and energy use at a site may be altered based on a user[’]s distance to the site.” Ex. 1001, 46:45–48. It further explains that “[i]n some forms, proximity detection selector 1036 can be hidden, displayed, selectable, or any combination thereof in response to a user having a mobile device capable of being detected when a user is at or away from a site.” Id. at 46:50–54. Thus, we consider the broadest reasonable construction of “proximity setting” consistent with the specification to be “a setting that can enable or disable proximity detection, where energy use at a site may be altered based on the user’s location.” Both parties acknowledge that this is a reasonable meaning of the term. Reply 8; PO Resp. 12.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“In sum, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the control terminal in Yamashita receives messages from the wireless terminals that represent the relative location of the mobile terminal (e.g., within 300 m of the site or moving away from the site) and that the control terminal includes a number of rules to compare the messages to determine what control information to send to the controlled appliances, and that as a result of the comparison sends control information to alter the condition of the controlled appliances. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 214–216. Thus, we are persuaded that Yamashita accounts for the “comparing limitations” of claim 9.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has shown adequately that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Yamashita with Shamoon. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Yamashita teaches away from the combination or that the combination would change the principle of operation of Yamashita.3 Patent Owner is correct that Yamashita distinguishes manual control, and notes the disadvantages of “burdensome operations” and the possibility the user may forget to perform the required operations. Ex. 1005, 1:35–40. Patent Owner is also correct that Yamashita states that one objective of the invention is a system that can automatically control an appliance based on position without requiring any operation by the user. Id. at 1:44–47. Yet, Yamashita also discloses an embodiment where the user is prompted before a message is sent, which does require an operation by the user. Id. at 23:31–51. Thus, we do not agree that Yamashita disparages all manual interaction as Patent Owner contends. Moreover, teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the communication features from Shamoon to transmit the thermostat readings to the mobile terminal to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages, not that communicating information from the site to” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,626,344 - Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01253 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Richton and Rosenblatt.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree that the claim language unambiguously requires that there must be outer boundaries. The term “zone” generally refers to an area. We turn to the specification to see how the ’797 patent describes a zone. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis’ and is, in fact, ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). As Petitioner points out, the specification refers to zones that do not have an outer boundary. See Ex. 1001, 12:41–44 (“detect mobile device 210 within a first zone (e.g., less than one (1) mile from the site, less than three (3) miles from site, greater than five (5) miles from site, etc.).”). Indeed, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument that in order to be “within” the zones there must be an outer boundary, the specification describes an embodiment where the user is “within” a zone that is “greater than five (5) miles from [the] site.” Id. at 12:42–44. In this instance, there is an inner boundary for the zone (five miles), but not an outer boundary.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“attempts to rebut this testimony with testimony from its declarant, Mr. McAlexander, that this statement in Richton only means that the location-action server can be distributed over a couple of remote servers. Ex. 2004 ¶ 71. We do not find Mr. McAlexander’s testimony persuasive for several reasons. In particular, the testimony ignores Richton’s explicit statement that it is not important where the components of the location-action server are located, but that “[o]nly the operative connection between the components is important.” Ex. 1003, 12:58–59. This statement suggests that the functionality can be more distributed than Mr. McAlexander contends. Moreover, Mr. McAlexander’s testimony mischaracterizes Petitioner’s and Dr. Selker’s argument by saying that “[t]his [statement] does not disclose [that] the various components, which carry out the location-based action services, are located on the mobile device.”8 Ex. 2004 ¶ 71. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Selker, however, suggested that this statement in Richton discloses locating the components on a mobile device. Instead, they suggested, and we agree, that because the functionality can be distributed, it enables the functionality to be placed on a mobile device.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“not commensurate with the scope of the claims because “whether” and “within” do not impart the limitations that Patent Owner seeks to include the claims. When Richton determines that the mobile device crosses a particular distance threshold such that the device is now in a particular zone, we find that Richton determines whether the device is within that zone. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119; Ex. 1003, 6:36–50, 8:46–9:10. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Richton teaches or suggests the zone limitations of claims 3–8 and 14.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,457,797 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,457,797
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.