- PTAB · Dec 21, 2022 · IPR2022-01088 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–21 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Brochure and Blunt rendered the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 15). At this stage of the proceeding and on the current record, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’771 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that “no terms need construction and the plain and ordinary meaning of each term can be applied.” Pet. 4 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). On the present record at this stage of the proceeding, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “modify Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel structure or substitute Brochure’s reel with Blunt’s reel 34" to . . . replenish the supply of cable in Brochure’s reel when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51–56; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Additionally, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected success in modifying Brochure’s cable reel with the reel structure of Blunt’s reel 34" or substituting Brochure’s reel with Blunt’s reel 34" because the modification would merely involve using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way taught.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 53). We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed arguments challenging claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–21 and the evidence on which Petitioner relies (see Pet. 16–83), and we find, on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Brochure and Blunt satisfies the elements of claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–21, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,906,771 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01087 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 10–19 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 and 10–19 would be obvious over Brochure and Blunt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Eldering’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 15). At this stage of the proceeding and on the current record, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’016 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “modify Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel structure or substitute Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel 34" to . . . replenish the supply of cable in the cable reel installed in the Tote bag when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–63; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Additionally, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected success in modifying Brochure’s cable reel with the reel structure of Blunt’s reel 34" or substituting Brochure’s cable reel with Blunt’s reel 34" because the modification would merely involve using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way taught.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed arguments challenging claims 1–8 and 10–19 and the evidence on which Petitioner relies (see Pet. 17–92), and we find, on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Brochure and Blunt satisfies the elements of claims 1–8 and 10–19, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,941,016 - Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00862 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the proposed prior-art combinations and the required motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 25; PO Resp. 9–10. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 6 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“summarized above, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to a computer-controlled, OCT-guided laser system. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Swinger and Baikoff to achieve a laser surgical system incorporating an OCT imaging system, that combination still would not have achieved the required “computer system” of the claims and all of its programmed surgical functionality, particularly, using a computer system to construct an anterior capsulotomy cutting region based on the image data. Petitioner relies on the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Swinger’s computer control unit with the missing functionality, thus necessitating an electronic conversion of the steps performed using Swinger’s direct visualization method using a HeNe aiming beam to manually identify a surgical treatment region for laser surgery. Ex. 1039, 34:52–57; Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 55–59, 66. That conversion, however, involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and then implement the planned cataract surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show were known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and to implement a planned cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace or even considered before the invention.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The evidence of record demonstrates, however, that modifying an existing corneal surgery system to image and perform surgery on the lens was not the simple task asserted by Petitioner. For example, in a patent application filed in November 2009, Petitioner asserted that due to the different depth ranges for the laser’s focus, “laser systems designed for corneal procedures do not offer solution[s] for the considerable challenges of performing surgery on the lens of the eye.” Ex. 2007, 4:65–67, 5:30–36, code (22). Similarly, in a different patent filed in December 2008, Petitioner outlined the various challenges in developing laser surgery systems for creating incisions in the lens, including the difficulty in focusing a laser beam that propagates through regions of the eye with different optical properties and different curvatures. Ex. 2014, 15:51–16:18, code (22). This patent then states: Because of all the described hard challenges, corneal surgical laser systems are qualitatively simpler than lens surgical lasers. This is well supported by the fact that even though corneal surgical systems were suggested about 40 years ago, none have been adapted successfully for lens surgery to date. Id. at 16:13–18. During prosecution of another patent filed in 2008, and in responses to office actions filed in 2012 and 2013, Petitioner argued that a corneal OCT system “simply will not work” on the lens and that it would not have been obvious to modify such an OCT system to image the lens. Ex. 2015, 898, 1591, 1788. This was because OCT systems designed to image the lens would be required to deliver and scan an imaging beam “to a depth ten times bigger and a depth range ten times bigger” than an OCT system designed to image the cornea. Id. at 1591. According to Petitioner, “it is not obvious” to modify an OCT imaging system to achieve a depth and scanning range that is ten times larger than that disclosed in the art. Id. at 898 (“Increasing a system’s performance by an order of magnitude cannot be regarded as obvious.”), 1590–1591. Petitioner’s arguments presented in its own patents and during their” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,709,001 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,709,001 - Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00858 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that the asserted prior-art combinations would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 26; PO Resp. 8–9. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to a computer-controlled, OCTguided laser system. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Swinger and Baikoff to achieve a laser surgical system incorporating an OCT imaging system, that combination still would not have achieved the required “control system” of the claims and all of its programmed surgical functionality. Petitioner relies on the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Swinger’s computer control unit with the missing functionality, thus necessitating an electronic conversion of the steps performed by a surgeon using Swinger’s direct visualization method using a HeNe aiming beam to manually identify a surgical treatment region for laser surgery. Ex. 1039, 34:52–57; Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 55–59, 66. That conversion, however, involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and then implement the planned cataract surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show were known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and to implement a planned cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace or even considered before the invention. We recognize that Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Izatt who opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, for example, use a controller to determine the claimed scanning pattern. Ex. 1001 ¶ 159; Pet. 32–33; Reply 3–5; see also Ex. 1123 ¶ 31 (“Once the anterior capsule is identified, it is a relatively simple process to determine the location to place the capsulotomy.”). Here, however, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition and supporting testimony fails to provide the requisite reasoned analysis with sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s position on obviousness. In particular, absent some evidentiary support beyond Dr. Izatt’s and Dr. Tipperman’s bare opinions that it would have been obvious to program a controller to bridge the gap between the functionality disclosed in Swinger and the required functionality of the challenged claims, we are unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. PO Resp. 27; Sur-Reply 4–7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 159; see also DSS, 885 F.3d at 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A skilled artisan’s “common sense” or “common knowledge” can potentially “fill in a missing limitation only when ‘the limitation in question was unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward.’” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 25
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be incorporated-by-reference in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential)).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,425,497 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,425,497 - PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00946 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12 and 14–22 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PPC would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented in the Petition, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–12 and 14–22 of the ’342 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“In addition, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would understand that Brochure in combination with Blunt teaches the “first flange configured to engage the first frame” and the “second flange configured to engage the second frame.” Pet. 42–44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–75; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 96–97, Figs. 3, 11; Ex. 1006; Ex. 1001, 10:50–53). Specifically, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would understand that when the separable cable reel disclosed in Blunt is inserted into the bag in Brochure, “the ‘first flange’ is ‘configured to engage’ the ‘first frame’ in the base of the bag and the outer engaged with the ‘first frame.’” Id. at 40. Petitioner reasons that a POSITA would understand that the cable reels of Brochure and Blunt are similarly configured when the cable reel in Blunt is assembled. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). According to Petitioner, a POSITA would know that when the Blunt cable reel is inserted into the Brochure bag, the outer side of the flange first inserted into the bag (i.e., the “first flange”) is configured to engage with the first frame at the base of the bag in Brochure. Id. Petitioner explains the same is true for the outer side of the second flange, which is the flange facing out of the bag cover. Id. At this stage, we note that the preliminary evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that Blunt teaches reel 34", flange 42", core 36", and separate flange 40". Ex. 1004 ¶ 96, Fig. 11. Further, Dr. Eldering’s unrebutted testimony supports Petitioner’s position that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement a two-component reel structure, such as Blunt’s cable reel 34", within Brochure’s cable reel apparatus. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Dr. Eldering also testifies a POSITA would understand the environmentally friendly advantages of replenishing the supply of cable in the cable reel installed in the Tote bag. Id. ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Upon review of the preliminary record and based on the evidence and” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes “the plain meaning of each claim term can be applied.” Pet. 5. For purposes of this Decision, we do not expressly construe any terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,988,342 - PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00947 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1 over Brochure and Blunt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For reasons provided below, we determine, on behalf of the Director (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We therefore institute the petitioned inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the ’471 patent “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4; Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’471 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms need construction and the plain meaning can be applied.” Pet. 5. Petitioner asserts claim 4’s “means for releasably coupling” limitation (Ex. 1001, 12:21–27, pg. 20 (Cert. of Correction)) is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and Petitioner provides a corresponding construction. See Pet. 5–6. For reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 provides a sufficient basis to justify institution of review regardless of claim 4, so we do not reach this claim construction issue at the present time. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (authorizing institution of inter partes review if there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims). Based on our review of the record at this preliminary stage, we determine no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to decide whether to institute review. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to implement a two-component reel structure, such as Blunt’s cable reel 34ʹʹ, within Brochure’s cable reel apparatus. See Pet. 28–34, 36–38, 49–52. This would have been done, according to Petitioner, in order to permit the user to “replenish the supply of cable in Brochure’s cable reel when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Petitioner points out that Brochure describes its system as being “Environmentally-Friendly,” and alleges that Blunt similarly describes how its two-component reel 34ʹʹ can “be replenished with a new supply of cable when the cable supply in the reel is exhausted such that the reel would be reused in ‘an environmentally friendly manner.’” Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1006; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 73, 89); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Specifically, according to Petitioner, using Blunt’s replenishable two-component reel in Brochure “would be environmentally friendly because it would save cost and reduce waste since the entire cable reel does not have to be disposed.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 19; Ex. 1005, 1:21–25, 4:33–57, Fig. 6); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Petitioner also asserts this modification could have been achieved with a reasonable expectation of success, given various similarities between Brochure’s and Blunt’s rotatable mounting of a cable reel, and related teachings in those and other prior art references. See Pet. 29–32; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 59–61. Petitioner further provides illustrations of how a person of ordinary skill in the art might have implemented this combination. See Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62. Upon review of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner’s contentions regarding the motivations that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to use, with a reasonable expectation of success, Blunt’s two-component cable reel structure within Brochure’s cable dispensing apparatus, are sufficiently articulated and supported by the evidence of record to justify institution of review.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,001,471 - Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00856 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable over the asserted §103 grounds; claims 17–23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“persuasive and credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that Freedman’s ablating laser is incompatible with laser surgery on the lens or lens capsule during cataract surgery. Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 49–51, 79–82. This is because the ablating laser cannot pass through the cornea to reach the lens without destroying the cornea in the process. Id. ¶¶ 79, 82. In contrast, lasers used to cut internal tissues of the eye use laser photodisruption. Id. ¶ 80. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used Freedman’s system to perform surgery on the lens or lens capsule, as asserted by Petitioner.” slip op. at 76
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“exhibit provides no context or rationale for the award and, as discussed above, the Catalys product is composed of many components and systems not specifically covered by the challenged claims. Ex. 2043, 3. Patent Owner points also to a report dated June 28, 2012, as evidencing that this award was for the specific features of the Catalys product claimed, but this evidence lacks any identification of the author and the portion identifying features of the product appears to merely be listing features thereof rather identifying than any reason for the award. Ex. 2040. Additionally, the evidence of praise cited by Patent Owner is not specific to the subject matter of claim 1 (and its dependent claims) of the ’724 patent, but general praise for the FLACS system and laser-guided femtosecond laser procedures. See Ex. 2035; Ex. 2037; Ex. 2044; Ex. 2051. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence on industry praise.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 8,500,724 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,500,724 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cardiovalve Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-01051 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–10 and replacing them with claims 11–20, which Petitioner failed to prove unpatentable over Goldfarb ’267.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“We conclude that Petitioner’s arguments are insufficient to meet its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Goldfarb ’267 anticipates, or renders obvious, the limitation of proposed substitute claim 11 reciting “advancing the end of the first-clip arm and the end of the second-clip arm out of the delivery tube before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube” merely requires advancing the ends of the clip arms out of the delivery tube “before advancing the support portion out of the delivery tube.” Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to proposed substitute dependent claims 12–20 due to their dependence from, and incorporation of, the limitations of proposed substitute claim 11. See Supp. Mot. Amend. 1, Reply Supp. Mot. Amend. 1. We therefore conclude that these proposed substitute claims are similarly neither anticipated by, nor obvious over, Goldfarb ’267. III. CONCLUSION We GRANT Patent Owner’s non-contingent Motion to Amend and Supplemental Motion to Amend, canceling original claims 1–10 and replacing them with substitute claims 11–20. Additionally, for the foregoing reasons, and after having analyzed the entirety of the record and assigning appropriate weight to the cited supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claims 11–20 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 57
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Having weighed the evidence and Petitioner’s argument, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as: (1) a mechanical or biomedical engineer with at least three years of experience in designing or developing medical devices who would, where necessary or desired, work or consult with others including a physician to develop such a medical device; or (2) an interventional cardiologist or cardiac surgeon with at least three years of experience developing and/or using medical devices in the heart, and who would, where necessary, work or consult with others including an engineer to develop such a medical device. See Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Vesely. Ex. 1003. We have reviewed the credentials of Dr. Vesely and consider him qualified to provide the opinions for which his testimony has 4 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,563,267 B2, July 21, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’267”) (Ex. 1005). 5 Petitioner refers to Goldfarb’s ’267 disclosure of a further alternative at Ex. 1005 col. 27 ll. 57–60 as Embodiment A. See Pet. 19. We understand the asserted Embodiment A to encompass the description that extends to Ex. 1005 col. 28, l. 9. See Pet. 24–48. 6 Goldfarb et al. (US 7,635,329 B2, December 22, 2009) (“Goldfarb ’329”) Ex. 1006. 7 Ex. 1005 cols. 17–23, ll. 66–29, Figs. 9–16; see Pet. 21–22. been submitted. See id. ¶¶ 1–9; see also Ex. 1004 (Dr. Vesely’s curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“is described in Goldfarb ’267 as plainly a single, unitary structure and, as such, each portion argued as separate elements by Petitioner (i.e., male element (yellow), female element (green), coupling member 19 (blue) and flexible arms 19A and 19B (dark blue)) together form a solid, single component. Thus, all of the “elements” described by Petitioner as being “separate” are in fact a single unit that: (1) bears the weight of the fixation device during delivery; (2) absorbs and transfer the axial and rotational forces imposed by the shaft 12; and (3) holds the device in the correct orientation. Petitioner points to no disclosure of Goldfarb ’267 that suggests these elements act independently or separately to perform the functions of the unitary component, nor can we discern any such disclosure. We therefore find that Petitioner’s argument that only the “male element” portion of coupling member 19 constitutes the “support portion” recited in proposed substitute claim 11 is an arbitrary and unduly restrictive interpretation of the reference’s disclosure. This is particularly true given that Petitioner points to no portion of the male element of coupling member 19 performing a supporting function that is not shared by the other elements of coupling member 19. We conclude that the better understanding of the reference is that the entirety of coupling member 19 (including flexible arms 10A and 19B11) constitutes an analogous support portion, as recited by substitute claim 11, because it provides a unitary structure that performs the supporting functions enumerated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,702,385 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,702,385 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityInstitutedPTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“§ 315(b) is unavailing. Rule 42.104(b) requires a petitioner to state in its petition “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3), (b)(4). The Petition states “[t]he Board construes the claims ‘using the same claim construction standard that would be used’ in district courts.” Pet. 20. We disagree that Rule 42.104(b) or the CTPG requires Petitioner to make any specific statement if it takes the position that no express construction of claim terms is required. Rather, the CTPG states that “a petitioner may include a statement that the claim terms require no express construction.” CTPG 44.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We use a two-part framework to analyze a request to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). First, we determine “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Second, if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, then we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims.” Id. In applying this framework, we refer to the non-exclusive factors delineated in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph). These factors are: a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; b) the cumulative nature of asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; d) the extent of overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Id. at 17–18.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in 2003 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 9. We find, on the current record, that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner propose no express construction for any claim term, at least with regard to the alleged obviousness grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. 20. In regard to the alleged anticipation grounds, Petitioner contends “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep,” and asserts this is an “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court. Id. at 68, 70. Patent Owner proposes no express construction of any claim term and states “no claim terms are in controversy.” Prelim. Resp. 10. In light of our determinations below, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,539 - Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00853 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted combinations lacked a persuasive basis for achieving the claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’725 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not ask that this claim language be expressly construed or contest Petitioner’s proposed interpretation. See Resp. 11–15. Although it is not necessary for our final decision in this proceeding to construe this claim language because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability, as it is uncontested, we adopt as our own Petitioner’s proposed construction of “imaging device configured to acquire point by point image data from locations distributed throughout a volume of a crystalline lens.”” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the disputed term “automatically” in this context, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain meaning of the term “automatically” is that the “control system” can, on its own and without human intervention, perform the subsequently recited step. Resp. 11–15; see also Pet. 10 (Petitioner agreeing this is the plain meaning). This is supported by the Specification, which states, inter alia, that “the entire system is controlled by the controller CPU” and describes alternative embodiments where (1) the system is fully in control and where (2) user input identifies targets. Ex. 1027, 12:23–25, 13:25–44, Figs. 14, 15. However, we also agree with Petitioner that just because the claimed “control system” is configured/programmed to perform (i.e., capable of performing) some tasks “automatically” (i.e., entirely on its own), this does not mean user input (e.g., from a surgeon) must be altogether excluded. Pet. 10–11. In fact, user input must be possible and is within the scope of the independent claim. “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.” Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Here claim 2, requiring automatic target identification, and claim 5, requiring user input on target identification, each depends from claim 1 and illuminates its scope, which must be broad enough to encompass both. Thus, although requiring (in claim 1) that a “control system” can perform certain recited functions, and that some are performed (according to claim 2) “automatically,” that same “control system” must also be capable of allowing a user input on the locations of targets for laser treatment (according to claim 5). Such optional user input required by dependent claim 5 is described in the Specification, which includes embodiments where a surgeon can adjust the size, location, and shape of the treatment pattern, can determine the optimal cutting contours in patients, and can provide “user input” to define targets or adjust computer-defined parameters as necessary. Ex. 1027, 10:55–45; 10:67–11:2, 13:25–55, 13:63–14:2. Regardless, the configuration of independent claim 1’s “control system,” which must be programmed to and capable of performing its own recited steps/functions, is not diminished by the requirements of either dependent claim. Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corporation, 831 F.3d 1350, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he language of a dependent claim cannot change the scope of an independent claim whose meaning is clear on its face.”).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“generally. “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact,” and this “requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1366–67. Based on the record, we conclude that, even if it would have been potentially advantageous to in some way incorporate the use of Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging and measuring into Swinger’s system and method for cataract surgery (for example, to replace the use of ultrasound imaging with OCT), we agree with Patent Owner that, other than the (ultimately) conclusory testimony of its witness Dr. Izatt (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 110, 144, 151, 161, 163–165, 168), there is no persuasive evidence that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references with the result being a control system configured to (automatically or not in practice) image cataractous eye tissue, identify the targets therein (capsule and lens) to be cut with a laser, and then operate that laser to actually make those cuts based in some part on that imaging. See Resp. 15–34. We credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that, as of the invention, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have relieved the surgeon of responsibility for identifying cutting regions for laser capsulotomy and cataract surgery (as taught by Swinger), and relegated such task to a computer, which subsequently performs the procedure. Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 36–38, 42, 46, 62–66; see also Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 56–59, 68–71 (Dr. Walter testifying similarly). Dr. Kang takes issue with Petitioner’s positions that Baikoff and Li teach or suggest such reliance on a computer because, according to Dr. Kang, neither Baikoff nor Li (and indisputably not Swinger) teaches using a computer to identify laser cutting regions or to control laser surgery, and, in fact, they suggest reliance on a surgeon to interpret their OCT images to plan a subsequent surgery. See, e.g., Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 36–38, 42, 46, 62–66. We further credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that Petitioner fails to adequately explain, even were the ordinarily skilled artisan intent on combining Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging systems with Swinger’s cataract surgery system, how it would have been accomplished to overcome the “substantial challenges” and achieve the claimed invention. See id. ¶¶ 63– 66; see also Resp. 27–28 (addressing Petitioner’s lack of explanation as to how to implement the combination).19 We agree that, beyond merely suggesting plugging one system into another, Petitioner does not explain how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have programmed Swinger’s computer control system to use Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging systems and tissue recognition and measurement algorithms to determine capsulotomy cutting regions and then implement the planned cutting with a laser, even from a rudimentary perspective. See Pet. 35–40. Indeed, Petitioner concedes:” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 9,125,725 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,125,725
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.