• Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (D/B/A On Semiconductor) v. Power Integrations, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00995 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 26 and 27 unpatentable as anticipated by MC33362.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments. See id. An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “arguments. Our claim construction made clear in interpreting “multi-function circuit” that we agree with Patent Owner that the circuit is separate and distinct from the recited “control circuit” in the sense that the claim recites two distinct elements. Dec. 18. However, our interpretation further determined that although we agree “that the multi-function circuit and the control circuit are separate and distinct components in the claims, the claim language does not require that the functions performed by the two distinct circuits must be similarly separate and distinct.” Id. at 22. We further observed that, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification of the ’908 patent mentions certain functions of the multi-function circuit that are clearly tightly coupled to the “core regulation” function of the recited “control circuit.” Id. at 24–25 (e.g., shutting down the power supply in response to detecting over-voltage or under-voltage conditions). Thus, our Decision is consistent with our interpretation of “multi-function circuit” and expressly disagrees with Patent Owner’s arguments that the functions of the two circuits must also be separate and distinct.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,538,908
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Broadcom CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01624 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Diaz did not disclose internally reprogrammable hardware accelerators, and the other grounds did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “3. Construction of “configurable” In construing this term, we have considered the specification of the ’353 patent and its prosecution history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxycinn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accord with these portions of the ’844 patent specification and file history discussed supra, we conclude that a hardware accelerator is configurable only if its functionality can be internally reprogrammed. Thus, under our construction, an accelerator selected by an API or other instrumentality would not itself be “configurable.” This will be discussed further infra.” slip op. at 8

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

    “However, as Patent Owner argues, Diaz ’353 does not explicitly or inherently disclose hardware accelerators that are configurable to perform decoding functions according to a plurality of decoding methods. In Diaz ’533 the overall decoder — as opposed to the constituent hardware accelerators — is configurable in that the processor controls which hardware accelerators are activated. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5–8. We see no meaningful distinction in this respect between Diaz ’353 and Sullivan ’021 which, as discussed above, discloses an API that is configurable to select various hardware accelerators, but which are not themselves configurable, to assist in the decoding process. See Prelim. Resp. 6. In sum, the functionality of the hardware accelerators of Diaz ’353 cannot be internally reprogrammed, but rather can only be bypassed or reused for various operations. Therefore, in accord with our claim construction set forth above, we determine that those hardware accelerators are not “configurable” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “C. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 14 over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, and of Claim 12 over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim As discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Diaz ’353 discloses the claim 1 requirement of configurable hardware accelerators. Claims 8, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and so also include this requirement by virtue of their dependency. Petitioner’s obviousness grounds directed to these claims is premised on Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 1 that Diaz ’353 discloses configurable hardware accelerators. Pet. 51–63. Petitioner does not provide argument or evidence — aside from the above-considered anticipation arguments based on Diaz ’353 alone — that the combination of Diaz ’353 with Purcell ’483, Fandrianto ’459 or Kim teaches or suggests “a hardware accelerator . . . configurable to perform the decoding function according to a plurality of decoding methods.” Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 8 and 14 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, or of claim 12 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,844
• Groupon, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2017 · IPR2017-01158 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Groupon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on both § 103 grounds because the Petition did not adequately explain how the combinations would provide a federated computing environment.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked,” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “we noted that the only claim element that Petitioner mentions as missing in Sunada and Mellmer is a “federated computing environment.” Inst. Dec. 11, 16. We found that Petitioner’s proffered rationale for combining Sunada or Mellmer with the LA Specifications to arrive at the claimed invention was inadequate because Petitioner did not address how modifying Sunada or Mellmer to implement Liberty Alliance’s method of exchanging attributes would provide a federated computing environment (i.e., the missing claim element). Id. at 11, 16.” slip op. at 7

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “new argument that Petitioner presents in order to offer more explanation, which does not address what we overlooked or misapprehended in our Institution Decision. In its Petition, Petitioner proposed combining the references by “us[ing] the methods for transferring attributes described in the LASpecs in the exchanges specifically described in Sunada and Mellmer.” Pet. 21–23. Petitioner explained that such combination “would allow a POSITA to obtain predictable results,” which Petitioner identified explicitly as “the transfer of information described in Sunada and Mellmer” (id. at 23), not as “a compliant implementation of Sunada or Mellmer to operate in a federated computing environment” (Req. Reh’g 7). At this stage, it is too late for Petitioner to add further explanation in a request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 9

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,631,346
• Hutchinson Technology Inc. / Hutchinson Technology Operations (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Nitto Denko CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2017 · IPR2017-01499 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–4 and 6 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving anticipation or obviousness on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We find that the cited evidence does not support Petitioner’s position that the specific identified trace 53 meets the “eighth line” limitation. Petitioner’s own annotated version of Figure 2A shows the identified trace 53 bypassing the lines identified as the fifth and sixth lines and not “branching from fifth and sixth lines” as asserted by Petitioner. 1 See Pet. 24. The cited portions of Contreras also fail to describe that the identified trace 53 extends to be branched from the end of line 72 (fifth line) or the end of line 74 (sixth line). See Ex. 1005, 3:6–16, 4:26–34. We do not find credible Dr. Coughlin’s testimony that there is a mistake in Figure 2A because it is conclusory and not supported by evidence. See 37. C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “that the specific identified trace 53 meets the “eighth line” limitation. Petitioner’s own annotated version of Figure 2A shows the identified trace 53 bypassing the lines identified as the fifth and sixth lines and not “branching from fifth and sixth lines” as asserted by Petitioner. 1 See Pet. 24. The cited portions of Contreras also fail to describe that the identified trace 53 extends to be branched from the end of line 72 (fifth line) or the end of line 74 (sixth line). See Ex. 1005, 3:6–16, 4:26–34. We do not find credible Dr. Coughlin’s testimony that there is a mistake in Figure 2A because it is conclusory and not supported by evidence. See 37. C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 1 Figure 2A does show a trace that extends from the ends of lines 71, 72, 73, 74, but Petitioner maps this trace to the claimed “fourth line” and not the “eighth line.” See Pet. 21–22. (“The Board reviewed the evidence presented by the parties, and chose not to credit Skky’s expert testimony. . . we discern no reversible error in that choice.”). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that even if Dr. Coughlin’s testimony is correct that the identified line should be connected with the buried conductive island (Ex. 1007 ¶ 96), Petitioner fails to explain how a line that connects to the buried conductive island meets the claim limitation “extends to be branched from the other end of said fifth line or the other end of said sixth line” (emphasis added).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “In view of our analysis, we do not find it necessary to construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,923,644
• Cree, Inc. v. Optolum, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01511 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable, chiefly because Begemann did not disclose the claimed heat-conduction-to-contained-fluid limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “evidence. As explained below and given the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertions that Begemann anticipates either of claims 17 or 30. 1. Principles of Law” slip op. at 8

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

    “136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the Board’s use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in Inter Partes Review proceedings). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, claims terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms or phrases must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Petitioner advances interpretations of the claim terms “elongate,” “thermally conductive member,” and “heat dissipation protrusions.” Pet. 17–18. In turn, Patent Owner advances interpretations of “thermally conductive member,” “heat dissipation protrusions,” and “configured to.” Prelim. Resp. 17–21. Having considered the evidence of record and as reflected in the discussion below, we determine that express construction of these terms is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “A claim is anticipated if each limitation of the claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be ‘arranged as in the claim’ means that claims cannot be ‘treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning.’” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The Federal Circuit has also explained, however, that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “likewise require that the thermally conductive member includes the “configured to” limitation and “one or more heat dissipation protrusions, at least one of said heat dissipation protrusions being carried on said elongate member outer surface” limitations discussed above. Ex. 1001 at 4:47–50, 5:60–63. In addition to the anticipation arguments for claims 17 and 30, Petitioner argues in the alternative, “[s]hould it be determined that Begemann does not disclose the claimed heat dissipation protrusions, then claim 17 is obvious in view of Begemann in combination with English” (Pet. 28) and “claim 30 is obvious in view of Begemann in combination with English . . . for reasons previously explained . . . for claim 17” (Pet. 59). According to Petitioner, English expressly discloses the placement of cooling fins on an exterior of a hollow, metal base portion of an elongated, thermally conductive metal support to further enhance heat dissipation for cooling LEDs mounted on the metal support. Pet. 31. Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the cooling fins of the lamp of English to the outer surface of Begemann’s gear column to enhance the performance and/or efficiency of cooling the LEDs by enhancing heat dissipation away from the gear column, substrate, and LEDs “to air circulating inside and at the outer surface of the gear column 1.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 93–94). Further, Petitioner presents the following annotated copy of Begemann’s Figure 1 to illustrate its proposed modification of Begemann’s gear column using English’s fins: Petitioner’s annotated version of Begemann Figure 1 with accompanying text that describes providing cooling fins to the outer surface of Begemann’s gear column 1. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 at 4:6–9). As Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 39), Petitioner does not rely on English to meet the “configured to” limitation for either of claim 17 or 30 (see, e.g., Pet. 26–27, 55–56 (citing only Begemann for the “configure to” limitation)). Having determined above that Begemann fails to disclose the “configured to” limitation, Petitioner’s reliance on English to satisfy the heat dissipation protrusions limitation fails to cure the noted deficiencies in Begemann with regards to the “configured to” limitation of claims 17 and 30 of the ’028 Patent.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,242,028
• Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Conformis, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2017 · IPR2017-00372 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Smith & Nephew’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–83 because the petition failed to show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot reached

    “II. DISCUSSION Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

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

    “combination of Radermacher and Kenna in which a cutting guide (as in Radermacher) is aligned intra-operatively (as in Kenna), but that the Decision did not address a combination of Radermacher and Kenna in which there is angular alignment (as in Kenna) when the cutting guide is planned pre-operatively (which Petitioner argues to have been taught in Radermacher). First, we regard this latter argument to be a new argument. The argument in the Petition is reproduced above. We conclude that the Petition provided inadequate argument and reasoning for combining the references in this manner, i.e., to take the intra-operative teachings of Kenna and apply them pre-operatively. Neither the Petition nor Declaration explain how this would have been accomplished or persuade us that such a combination would have been obvious (without intra-operative adjustment, as taught in Kenna). In particular, the Petition does not explain adequately how a person of ordinary skill would have included Kenna’s angle adjustment teaching in Radermacher’s prosthesis with a patient-specific surface, rather than rotating Kenna’s cutting guide intra-operatively. Although we appreciate Petitioner’s argument that the combination does not require bodily incorporation of one prior art device into another, we are not persuaded that the Petition adequately set forth what that combination would be, or how it would be achieved. See, e.g., Pet. 43–45 (quoting Kenna and asserting it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the prior art).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s reliance on Exhibits 1051, 1054, 1055, and 1057 is misplaced because the Petition did not contain developed arguments with respect thereto, and we regard this as a new argument. As such, we determine that we did not overlook or misapprehend any arguments with respect to Exhibits 1051, 1054, 1055, and 1057. To the extent that Petitioner relies on Kenna for the argued limitation, we address that contention below.” slip op. at 5

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,377,129
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 18, 2017 · IPR2016-00908 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61–67, 69, 83–86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, and 102 unpatentable over the instituted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The levels of ordinary skill proposed by the parties do not differ significantly. Both parties’ proposed descriptions require at least an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or related technical field, and both value industry experience (although Petitioner quantifies this experience as two to three years). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as more representative, but note that our analysis would be the same under either definition. We further find the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “testimony of Dr. Cairns that the combination is not predictable and not one that would have been made by a skilled artisan. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 102– 103. Dr. Cairns relies on the ’183 Patent’s statements that its detection circuit “operates at a higher frequency than prior art touch sensing circuits,” which “is not a benign choice” relative to the prior art detection circuits. Id. ¶ 103 (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:9–14). Dr. Cairns further relies on the ’183 Patent’s description of testing required to identify ideal frequency ranges as further evidence that the combination of prior art elements is not predictable and not one that would have been made by a skilled artisan. Id. ¶¶ 103–104. We credit the testimony of Dr. Cairns on this point over the testimony of Dr. Subramanian because Dr. Cairns’ testimony is more fully developed and is supported by record evidence. For instance, Dr. Subramanian offers no explanation of why one would have found incorporating Gerpheide’s monitoring of oscillator frequencies, calculation of new frequencies, and use of newly-calculated frequencies “to be a predictable and common sense implementation.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 72; see also Ex. 1017 ¶ 8. Rather, Dr. Subrarmanian recites a potential benefit of the combination—namely “to allow the combined Ingraham I-Caldwell system to reject electrical interference regardless of its frequency without expensive nulling circuitry.” Id. Conversely, Dr. Cairns proffers the testing described in the ’183 patent as evidence that identifying the ideal frequency ranges for use in the claimed invention was not a predictable combination of prior art elements. Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 103–104.” slip op. at 20

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

    “On this evidentiary record, we are not persuaded one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Gerpheide with Ingraham I and Caldwell to arrive at claim 40. Gerpheide is related to a single point input device, such as those used to provide data input in lieu of a mouse or stylus. Ex. 1012, 1:10–14, 1:19–20, 2:61–3:12. Like the ’183 patent, Ingraham I and Caldwell disclose capacitive response keypads. Ex. 1007. 1:5–9, 2:19–20; Ex. 1009, 1:6–9, 1:42– 44, 2:45–48. The ’183 patent describes monitoring electrical interference across a single electrode and varying the frequency of an oscillator frequency based on an interference measurement. Ex. 1001, 6:13–18, 8:22–9:33. Conversely, the ’183 patent describes “a multiple touch pad circuit” including “an array of touch circuits.” Id. at 18:34–46. The ’183 patent seeks to overcome the problem of unintended actuation of these touch circuits when such circuits are placed in dense arrays. Id. at 3:65–4:3. Recognizing guard rings and sensitivity adjustments “have gone a considerable way in allowing touch switches to be spaced in comparatively close proximity,” the ’183 patent addresses the remaining problem of surface contamination across the keypad. Id. at 4:14–18. The considerations described in the ’183 patent, Ingraham I, and Caldwell related to the close proximity of touch circuits in a keypad are wholly absent from Gerpheide. Petitioner relies on Dr. Subramanian’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to Gerpheide “for its teachings regarding electrical interference nullification in touch systems by measuring interference and adjusting the oscillator output frequency based on the measured interference.” Reply 7. Dr. Subramanian’s testimony, however, is conclusory on this point. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69–72. The relevant portion of Dr. Subramanian’s testimony offers only that one would have found incorporating Gerpheide “to be a predictable and common sense implementation to allow the combined Ingraham I-Caldwell system to reject electrical interference regardless of its frequency without expensive nulling circuitry.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that each of the components in a challenged claim is known in the prior art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Although Petitioner has identified in Gerpheide “teachings regarding electrical interference nullification in touch systems” (Reply 7), Petitioner and Dr. Subramanian fail to address fully—in the face of Petitioner’s evidence to the contrary, including Dr. Cairn’s testimony and Rympalski—why an ordinarily skilled artisan would look to such teachings in Gerpheide with a reasonable expectation of success for combining them with Ingraham I and Caldwell.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 5,796,183 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,796,183
• Wendt Corporation v. Iqasr, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2017 · IPR2017-01080 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15, 18–20, and 22 were unpatentable over Jody or Jody and the 1998 Handbook.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We review the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review. A.” slip op. at 2

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

    “automobile shredder residue,” “sorting, non-ferrous recovery system,” “magnetic fuzz,” “selected magnetic fuzz,” “substantially free,” “recyclable materials,” and “air-locked automobile shredder residue sorting, non-ferrous recovery system” require construction. Pet. 12–35. In turn, Patent Owner proposes its own construction for those same terms. Prelim. Resp. 3–24. Having considered the evidence presented, we determine that we need only address the meaning of “magnetic fuzz” for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “The Petition also lacks an explicit inherency analysis. As Petitioner acknowledges in its legal background, inherent disclosure “necessarily describes” the unstated limitation. Pet. 35 (citing Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Even if Petitioner established that magnetic fuzz is likely present and sorted using Jody’s process, that does not establish inherency. See Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” (citation omitted)). To the extent that Petitioner’s argument that magnetic fuzz “would be part of the plastic-rich stream and initially would be sorted from the PUF, fines, etc.,” amounts to an inherency argument, it lacks adequate support. Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 69) (emphasis added). Petitioner’s assertion fails to address why magnetic fuzz would be present in Jody’s automobile shredder residue in the first place, much less that Jody’s process necessarily must sort that magnetic fuzz. Given Jody’s failure to disclose magnetic fuzz expressly, Petitioner needed to do more than merely assume that magnetic fuzz is present and assert that magnetic fuzz “would be” sorted, without explaining why this must be the case.” slip op. at 11

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

    “2. Discussion To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.” Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, the reference must “enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation.” Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms. Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 940–44 (CCPA 1962).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,132,432
• On Semiconductor Corporation / Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (D/B/A On Semiconductor) v. Power Integrations, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00809 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,212,079 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,212,079
• General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki KaishaRehearing denied
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2017 · IPR2016-01361 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted the expanded-panel request but denied rehearing, leaving in place the discretionary denial of institution in all five follow-on petitions.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “B. Requests for Rehearing A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 5

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Our intent in formulating the factors was to take undue inequities and prejudices to Patent Owner into account. Thus, factor 3 is directed to Petitioner’s potential benefit from receiving and having the opportunity to study Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, as well as our institution decisions on the first-filed petitions, prior to its filing of follow-on petitions. As discussed in our Decisions Denying Institution, we are concerned here by the shifts in the prior art asserted and the related arguments in follow-on petitions. See Dec. 11. Multiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims raise the potential for abuse. The absence of any restrictions on follow-on petitions would allow petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of review.14 All other factors aside, this is unfair to patent 14 The Board has addressed efficiency and potential prejudice induced by multiple petitions in multiple cases. See LG Electronics, slip op. at 12 (“The Board’s resources would be more fairly expended on first petitions rather than on a followon petition like the Petition in this case.”); Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Case IPR2014-00581, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8) (“[T]he four obviousness grounds are ‘second bites at the apple,’ which use our prior decision as a roadmap to remedy Butamax’s prior, deficient challenge. owners and is an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and other post-grant review processes. Considering other factors (i.e., factors 2, 4, and 5) allows us to assess and weigh whether a petitioner should have or could have raised the new challenges earlier. We recognize that there may be circumstances where multiple petitions by the same petitioner against the same claims of a patent should be permitted, and that such a determination is dependent on the facts at issue in the case. The factors set forth above, in our view, represent a formulation of relevant considerations that permit the Board to assess the potential impacts on both the efficiency of the inter partes review process and the fundamental fairness of the process for all parties. We recognize, also, that additional factors may arise in other cases for consideration, where appropriate. However, the factors set forth above, at the very least, serve to act as a baseline of factors to be considered in our future evaluation of follow-on petitions.” slip op. at 17

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

    “panels to authorize, an expanded panel. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 6; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.1–42.412; see also AOL Inc. v. Coho Licensing LLC, Case IPR2014-00771, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2015) (Paper 12) (“[P]arties are not permitted to request, and panels do not authorize, panel expansion.”). Our standard operating procedures, however, provide the Chief Judge with discretion to expand a panel to include more than three judges. PTAB SOP 1, 1–3 (§§ II, III) (Rev. 14); see id. at 1 (introductory language explaining that the Director has delegated to the Chief Judge the authority to designate panels under 35 U.S.C. § 6); see also In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (providing that Congress “expressly granted the Commissioner the authority to designate expanded Board panels made up of more than three Board members.”). The Chief Judge may consider panel expansions upon a “suggestion” from a judge, panel, or party in a post-grant review. Id. at 3–4; see also Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., Case IPR2014-00319, slip op. at 2 n.1 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (Paper 20) (expanded panel) (per curiam). The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 3 (§ III.A). For example, an expanded panel may be appropriate when “[t]he proceeding or AIA Review involves an issue of exceptional importance.” Id. (§ III.A.1). In these cases, the Chief Judge has considered whether expansion is warranted, and has decided to expand the panel due to the exceptional nature of the issues presented.4 As we discuss further below, follow-on petitions have been at issue in multiple cases before the Board. The Chief Judge has determined that an expanded panel is warranted to provide a discussion of factors that are considered in the exercise of the Board’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 4

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,909,094

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.