• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00781 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3, 18, and 20 were obvious over Hogeg and claims 3, 7, 17, 20, 24, and 34 over Hogeg and …

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Petitioner that this factor weighs against discretionary denial. As Wyze explained, the reason a stay favors institution is because it “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Because the [district] court decided an issue that does not overlap with those presented in this proceeding, and the [district] court is not likely to address the obviousness issues before our final written decision (if it addresses the issues at all), the [district] court’s ruling has allayed any concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts between us and the [district] court. Wyze, Paper 14 at 10. The same reasoning applies here. The district court’s judgment of invalidity under § 101 and Patent Owner’s appeal of that judgment virtually assures that the district court will not be considering the same obviousness issues presented in this Petition during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’986 patent. There is no dispute that Hogeg was at least considered by the Examiner, even if the Examiner never discussed Hogeg or applied it in a rejection. See Ex. 1002, 502. Advanced Bionics Part One asks whether a reference was previously presented to the Office, not whether the Office formed a rejection based on the reference. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8 (“Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).”). Although Petitioner correctly points out that Arujunan was not of record during prosecution of the ’986 patent, Petitioner relies on Hogeg alone for its challenge to claims 1, 3, 18, and 20. See Pet. 11, 18. Under these circumstances, we find Advanced Bionics Part One satisfied because the prior art before the Examiner was substantially the same as the prior art relied on in the Petition.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claim 1 would have been obvious over Hogeg. 3. Claims 3, 18, and 20 Claim 18 is a system claim that recites many limitations similar to those recited in claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 24:55–25:14. Petitioner contends that Hogeg teaches or renders obvious each of the limitations of claim 18, referring back to its arguments regarding claim 1 for common subject matter. See Pet. 59–65. Claims 3 and 20 recite similar features but depend from different claims: claim 3 depends from claim 1, while claim 20 depends from claim 18. See Ex. 1001, 24:3–7, 25:17–21. Petitioner asserts, with detailed citations to the record, that Hogeg teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 20. See Pet. 57–59, 65. We determine, on the current record, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its contention that claims 3, 18, and 20 would have been obvious over Hogeg.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 21. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173–174). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,108,986
• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00780 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–33 because Snap showed a reasonable likelihood they would have been obvious over Hogeg.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Concerning [1b], Petitioner relies on Hogeg’s system 100, which includes network servers, as the claimed “at least one hardware processor,” and the visual content editing functions stored in Hogeg’s repository 104 as the claimed “one or more digital media content processing functions.” Id. at 28–32. Petitioner argues that Hogeg teaches that its visual content editing functions are “associated with at least one distribution rule defining a sensor data condition” as claimed because a subset of functions are selected and distributed based on sensed conditions such as client terminal location. Id. at 33–41. Turning to [1c], Petitioner argues that Hogeg teaches receiving over network 101 sensor data from client terminals 102 that is determined according to outputs of GPS units of client terminals 102. Id. at 42–46. As to [1d], Petitioner argues that Hogeg teaches distributing digital media content processing functions to mobile devices “based on a match between the sensor data condition . . . and the sensor data of the at least one mobile device” as claimed because it describes sending a subset of visual content editing functions to a client terminal based on matching the GPS data from the mobile device with location information related to the visual editing functions stored in system 100. Id. at 46–50. Finally, with respect to [1e], Petitioner asserts that Hogeg teaches that “the at least one digital media content processing function is configured to be used by an application executed on the at least one mobile device” as claimed because Hogeg describes that its visual content editing function is configured to be used by an app, widget, or add-on in client terminal 102. Id. at 50–52. Further, Petitioner asserts that Hogeg’s content editing function “process[es] a digital media content to create an output digital media content” as claimed because it processes an image on a client terminal and creates a new image, which is a modified version of the original image. Id. at 50, 52–55. Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has” slip op. at 31

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “because it “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Because the [district] court decided an issue that does not overlap with those presented in this proceeding, and the [district] court is not likely to address the obviousness issues before our final written decision (if it addresses the issues at all), the [district] court’s ruling has allayed any concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts between us and the [district] court. Wyze, Paper 14 at 10. The same reasoning applies here. The district court’s judgment of invalidity under § 101 and Patent Owner’s appeal of that judgment virtually assures that the district court will not be considering the same obviousness issues presented in this Petition during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “We are satisfied that Petitioner has provided an adequate justification for filing two petitions to challenge the ’986 patent. The Board’s Practice Guide notes that a need to address a large number of claims is one example of a circumstance where more than one petition may be necessary. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, at 59 (Nov. 2019). Beyond the number of challenged claims, it is reasonable for Petitioner to question how it could effectively challenge in a single petition a claim set that, by itself, fills out 10% of the permissible word count. Finally, Petitioner shows that the two petitions have been structured in a way to minimize the burden on the Board and Patent Owner, by presenting a small number of grounds with consistent arguments that rely on the same art. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Jenam Tech, LLC, IPR2021-00629, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Sept. 20, 2021) (finding that Petitioner had provided a satisfactory explanation for filing two petitions against a single patent because “[e]ach petition challenges different claims and presents only one ground against each claim,” as opposed to “a situation where a petitioner is using two petitions to lodge multiple parallel challenges to the same claims”).” slip op. at 19

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

    “Based on our review of the current record, we find that Petitioner has shown that the Examiner erred in failing to reject the claims based on Hogeg. As noted previously, the prosecution history of the ’986 patent includes no analysis or discussion of Hogeg. “[I]f the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. The Examiner’s explanation of why the claims were allowable over the prior art of record focused on “the combination of distribution rule defining a sensor data condition and sensor data.” Ex. 1002, 498. However, Petitioner provides a detailed discussion of why Hogeg discloses those features. See Pet. 28–42, 44–46. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not contest Petition’s contentions regarding these limitations (or any other aspect of the merits of Petitioner’s challenges). See Prelim. Resp. 1–16. As discussed below, we determine on the current record that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that the challenged claims would have been obvious based on Hogeg. We also find Petitioner’s showing sufficient to establish that the Examiner erred. The parties’ reliance on the prosecution of related patents involving allegedly similar claims does not impact the outcome of our analysis. See Pet. 17 (mentioning, without elaboration or citation, the EPO rejection of claims); Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (addressing allowance of claims over Hogeg and other material). Because we find that Petitioner made a sufficient showing of Examiner error without relying on the EPO rejection of allegedly similar claims, we need not assess the probative value of the EPO’s rejection, the details of which are not discussed in this Petition. As to Patent Owner’s reliance on the prosecution history of related claims before different Examiners that considered Hogeg and related materials, those arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing of Examiner error. First, Patent Owner acknowledges that although the Examiners considered Hogeg, “neither Examiner specifically discussed Hogeg in allowing claims” that were at issue. Prelim. Resp. 15. Second, even if the claims in the related applications are “similar” to the challenged claims, Patent Owner’s briefing does not provide any detailed analysis of the related claims sufficient to determine how the claims in later applications differ from the challenged claims here, and whether those differences are material. See id. at 14–15. Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the Examiners’ allowance of the claims in other applications over Hogeg amounted to a finding that Hogeg fails to disclose one of the limitations in the challenged claims here. Further, even if we agreed that such an implicit finding was made during later prosecution, Petitioner’s challenge based on Hogeg in the Petition provides more compelling evidence of Examiner error than the prosecution of related claims that lack any direct discussion of Hogeg. 5. Conclusion Based on our review of the current record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Examiner erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,108,986
• Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2021 · IPR2021-00779 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–11 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Snap would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the briefing thus far, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus institute inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018); PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting on All Challenged Patent Claims and All Grounds and Eliminating the Presumption at Institution Favoring Petitioner as to Testimonial Evidence (“PTAB Rules”), 85 Fed. Reg. 79,120, 79,120 (Dec. 9, 2020) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) (“[T]he Board will either institute review on all of the challenged claims and grounds of unpatentability presented in the petition or deny the petition.”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We agree with Petitioner that this factor weighs against discretionary denial. As Wyze explained, the reason a stay favors institution is because it “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Because the [district] court decided an issue that does not overlap with those presented in this proceeding, and the [district] court is not likely to address the obviousness issues before our final written decision (if it addresses the issues at all), the [district] court’s ruling has allayed any concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts between us and the [district] court. Wyze, Paper 14 at 10. The same reasoning applies here. The district court’s judgment of invalidity under § 101 and Patent Owner’s appeal of that judgment virtually assures that the district court will not be considering the same obviousness issues presented in this Petition during the course of this proceeding.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’866 patent. There is no dispute that Hogeg was at least considered by the Examiner, even if the Examiner never discussed Hogeg or relied on it in any manner. See Ex. 1002 at 132. Although Petitioner correctly points out that neither Svendsen nor Arujunan was of record during prosecution of the ’866 patent, Petitioner only relies on those references for its challenges to dependent claims 3 and 11. See Pet. 63–77. Petitioner relies on Hogeg alone for its challenge to claims 1, 2, and 4–10. See Pet. 27–63. Under these circumstances, we find the first part of the Advanced Bionics satisfied because the prior art before the Examiner was substantially the same as the prior art relied on in the Petition.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the alleged invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 23–24. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Pet. 24 (citing Parulski Decl. ¶¶ 186–187). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears consistent with the record at this stage of the proceeding, including the prior art. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 27

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,639,866
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2021 · IPR2019-01054 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a sufficient rationale to combine Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Critically, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Prairie acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt with bristles generally facing downward to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in the proposed combination to receive seeds that are deposited onto or into the bristles from above. In short, what Petitioner casually calls a “known technique” was not taught or suggested by Koning. Patent Owner explains this issue as follows: Koning does not suggest using a brush-belt for retaining and conveying seeds without a separate conveying member to bear their weight. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not predict that Koning’s brush-belt could be used successfully for that purpose because, inter alia, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not predict that Koning’s belt would successfully receive, retain or convey small seeds on its own due to the unique and unpredictable dynamics of such a belt. Ex. 2203, ¶¶ 136– 138, 164–167. Fundamentally, Koning’s belt, which is intended to steady potatoes while they are conveyed, is not a conveyor belt. Instead, it is a moving belt positioned over top of the potatoes; not intended to support their weight. Petitioners are thus not suggesting using a “familiar element according to known methods” to “yield predictable results.” Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 401.” slip op. at 33

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be captured by a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be the prior art references themselves. Ex. 2193, 214:6–14, 118:7–23. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” Ex. 2263, 79:17–19, 80:2–4. Mr. Prairie’s reliance on the prior art to support his conclusions is unpersuasive because Mr. Prairie does not account for the differences discussed above between the cited references’ usage of brush belts compared to the way it is used in the proposed combination. In particular, as relevant to the discussion here, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to capture seeds that have been released from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds released from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21, 22). Mr. Prairie opines this same level of ordinary skill, but adds the additional sentence that such an “ordinary artisan would have been familiar with the mechanics and design of agricultural planters.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 22. Mr. Prairie does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. 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.”); TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”) (citations omitted). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or closely related field, and “about two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery in industry or academia,” or, alternatively, “about five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” PO Resp. 2–3 (citing Ex. 2203 ¶¶ 47– 52). Patent Owner adds that “[s]uch a person would typically have experience designing projects on a component or small sub-system-level rather than redesigning a larger planting system.” Id. In support of Patent Owner, Dr. Glancey states that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is “too restrictive and sets the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’173 [p]atent too high.” Ex. 2203 ¶ 49. Dr. Glancey provided the following reasons: (1) undergraduate engineering curriculums in place in February 2009 focused on design at the freshman level and continued this focus throughout the student’s degree program, thus avoiding the need for significant post-graduate design experience; (2) masters programs in engineering focus on research for publication in peer-reviewed journals, rather than designing products for industry; and (3) engineering technicians, who may not have formal engineering degrees, “often have years’ worth of relevant hands-on experience” that corresponds to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. ¶¶ 50–52. Based on the evidence and arguments of record prior art, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. To the extent there is any inconsistency, we credit the testimony of Dr. Glancey over Mr. Prairie because Dr. Glancey’s opinion was more supported with more persuasive analysis and reasoning, as summarized above. However, we note that the differences between the parties’ proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art are not determinative. The analysis below would be materially the same under either party’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,004,173 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,004,173
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01055 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “would have had either: (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors as well as my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). slip op. at 12

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

    “We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “Patent Owner counters that Koning does not qualify as analogous art and, relatedly, that judicial estoppel bars Petitioner from contending otherwise. PO Resp. 7–17. Patent Owner further argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Koning’s belt with Hedderwick and Benac, and would not have expected that combination to succeed. Id. at 18–33; Sur-Reply 13–19. Patent Owner also challenges the motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the incorporation of Owner argues that incorporating Benac’s paddle wheel would not yield a “nip” as claimed. PO Resp. 49–61; Sur-Reply 29. Patent Owner also submits evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 61–98; Sur-Reply 2–10. 2. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Of the disputed issues summarized in the preceding section, our analysis focuses on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. Because those issues are dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the other disputed issues. See, e.g., Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming Board’s determination that claims were not shown to be obvious because the petitioner had not demonstrated that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining that it is unnecessary to reach other issues when reasonable expectation of success is dispositive).” slip op. at 22

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

    “between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 78 (“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have determined through no more than routine experimentation how to orient Benac’s paddle wheel so that it could operate with Koning’s brush belt bristles to pinch seeds from the seed meter.”). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the references in the proposed manner and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,699,955 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,955
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199
• Alaska Fuel Distributors Inc. / Afd Petroleum (Texas) Inc. et al. v. Frac Shack Inc.Other
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2020 · IPR2019-00995 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 2, 8, 10, 18, 19, 28–30, 32–34, 37, 38, 40–42, 45, and 47 and substituting claims 48–62, which were not shown obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “minimal probative value because Patent Owner has not adequately demonstrated a nexus between the asserted objective indicia and the merits of the claimed invention. Mot. to Exclude 3–4; Reply Mot. to Exclude 1–2. This argument attacks the merits of Patent Owner’s substantive arguments on objective indicia and does not establish an evidentiary basis for excluding Mr. Van Vliet’s testimony. We agree with Patent Owner that Mr. Van Vliet’s testimony is relevant to the issue of objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Opp. Mot. to Exclude 1–2. Petitioner also argues that Mr. Van Vliet’s declaration should be excluded because it contains hearsay. Mot. to Exclude 4–6; Reply Mot. to Exclude 2. Petitioner states that it “is not moving to exclude based on the fact that the Declaration itself [is] hearsay, but rather that it contains a multitude of statements therein that are themselves hearsay, made by persons other than Van Vliet . . . .” Mot. to Exclude 5. However, as Patent Owner points out, Petitioner does not identify any specific statements in the declaration that constitute hearsay. Opp. Mot. to Exclude 4. Even after Patent Owner pointed out this lack of specificity, Petitioner’s Reply still does not clarify which specific statements in the declaration are alleged to be hearsay and instead simply repeats the assertion there are “a multitude of statements therein that are themselves hearsay.” Reply Mot. to Exclude 2.” slip op. at 11

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

    “however, we first consider whether Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4. To satisfy those requirements, Patent Owner must demonstrate that: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of filing date is sought). See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 (2018).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We determine that the plain language of the claim, which requires that the fuel delivery connections “compris[e]” the fuel level sensor, shows that the fuel level sensor is structurally connected to the fuel level sensor. As Petitioner agrees, this claim language requires that the fuel delivery connection includes the fuel level sensor. Tr. 34:17–20. Both the fuel delivery connections and the fuel level sensor are structures, so for one to include the other, they must be physically connected. Petitioner’s argument give effect to the word “comprising.” Because a fuel delivery connection and a fuel level sensor would be operationally connected in any system that has both items, Petitioner’s interpretation essentially reads out the word “comprising” and treats the claim phrase as if it recited “fuel delivery connections and a fuel level sensor.” Our interpretation that the fuel delivery connections must be physically connected to the fuel level sensor is more faithful to the claim’s recitation that the fuel delivery connections “compris[e]” the fuel level sensor. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”) (quoting Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).” slip op. at 22

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

    “a low and high fuel level in the tanks to which the fuel delivery connection is connected.” RMTA A1. Patent Owner proposes that “low” fuel level means “empty or nearly empty” and “high” means “full or nearly full.” Id. at 5 nn.16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–4, 6:7–12; Ex. 2002, 10). Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s proposed constructions or offer competing constructions for these terms. See generally Opp. RMTA; Tr. 13:17–15:14. Although Patent Owner’s argument in support of these constructions is truncated, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposals are supported by the evidence of record. The ’906 patent describes that operators can be provided with “visual representations or displays showing the fuel level in each of the tanks 12. Any visual representation or display may be used that shows at least a high level condition (tank full) and a low level condition (tank empty or nearly empty) and preferably also shows actual fuel level.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:4; see also id. at 6:7–10 (explaining that “[t]he control station 56 may be provided with a full readout or display for each fuel tank 12 being filled that shows the level of fuel in the fuel tank 12 including when the fuel tank 12 is near empty and near full. An alternative is to provide only fuel empty (low sensor dry) or fuel full (high sensor wet) signals.”). These descriptions equate a high fuel level with the tank being full or nearly full and a low fuel level with the tank being empty or nearly empty. Patent” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,029,906
• Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01319 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–11, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Layfield and Rinard; claims 2–4, 12–14, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Micklow does not explain how or why he proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the level proposed by Petitioner and preliminarily adopted in our Decision on Institution. See generally id. ¶¶ 28–31. Additionally, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Micklow argues that the difference in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art affects the outcome of this proceeding; Dr. Micklow, in fact, states the contrary—that his opinions are the same under either level of skill. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 31.7 Nothing in the full record is sufficient to persuade us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been “a bachelor’s degree in mechanics, aeronautics, materials, or a related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the development of components of vehicles, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11; see Pet. 10.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer. that because thermoplastic material is more resilient than aluminum, we should adopt Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1058, 1– 12; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 77–82). We must base our decision in this case on the arguments and evidence presented. As explained above, the record before us has contradictory evidence in the form of Dr. Micklow’s testimony that was not before the examiner. 16 Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1018 in the Petition, but instead cites to Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the exhibit. Id. Thus, from the video, it is unknown whether the skirt panel is attached to the trailer by one strut, multiple struts, or additional features. Second, Petitioner does not identify clearly how the tested system precisely corresponds to the teachings of Layfield. For example, Patent Owner raises a number of issues with the struts and panels in the video to which Petitioner provides either no response or an unconvincing response. For example, Patent Owner argues that each embodiment of Layfield uses trusses 36 to “interconnect each skirt panel and reinforce the panel assembly,” while it is asserted that the skirt panels in the video do not have trusses and are not interconnected. PO Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that the skirt panels in the video were made according to the teachings of Layfield and did include “integral vertical lateral side edges as the connecting mechanism for adjacent panels.” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Exs. 1018, 2003, 2005; Ex. 1004, 18:36–39; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63–64; Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 37–38). Other than stating that the skirt panels have connecting mechanisms, Petitioner does not address the fact that the panels are not interconnected according to the teachings of Layfield, as Patent Owner correctly pointed out. See generally id. at 19–21.” slip op. at 28

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

    “components (see, e.g., id. at 17:1–10), Layfield does not contain any express disclosure concerning the flexibility of the struts. Nor does Layfield include any discussion about the desirability of strut flexibility. The closest Layfield comes to discussing flexibility of the struts is by frequently referring to the struts as “support struts” (see, e.g., id. at 18:40) and discussing the use of a “bracket means,” which is on the struts, to “rigidly secure” the skirt panels to the trailer (id. at 6:48–49). Further, Layfield’s detailed discussion of the embodiment of support strut 58 shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, highlights the bracing and reinforcement features. Figure 10, above, shows the construction detail of a support strut 58. Ex. 1004, 15:45. Specifically, Layfield discloses that strut 58 includes “a pair of spaced-apart vertical members 160, which are braced by horizontal cross-members 162” and “reinforcing rectangular lattice 170.” Id. at 15:46– 54. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Layfield does not expressly teach that the ‘support struts 58’ are ‘resilient.’” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 148–149). We reiterate that Petitioner’s first challenge is based on anticipation. Thus, Petitioner must show that resilient struts are “either expressly or inherently described, in” Layfield. Verdegaal Bros. Inc., 814 F.2d at 631; see also PO Resp. 42. In its Reply Brief and at the oral hearing, Petitioner contends that its challenge is based on express disclosure, not inherency. See Pet. Reply 17–18; Tr. 9:21–11:4 (arguing that “this is not a case of inherency”). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood, based upon Layfield’s express disclosures concerning the material, structure, and connection of the strut, that the Layfield strut is resilient and can sustain significant and substantial elastic deformation.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Whether we analyze Petitioner’s argument based on express disclosure or inherency, we reach the same result. To begin, although we agree with Petitioner that a prior art reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test” (Pet. Reply 17 (quoting In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), there is no express statement that Layfield’s strut is resilient or otherwise exhibits a characteristic synonymous with resiliency. Additionally, we do not agree that Petitioner’s reliance on the thermoplastic materials, disclosed by Layfield for construction of the strut, establishes whether the strut is resilient and capable of elastic deformation. The evidence submitted by the parties is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Layfield’s struts to be resilient based on the material alone.15 Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 74–82 15 Petitioner also points to a finding by the examiner, during prosecution of the ’017 patent application, that an aluminum strut was resilient, and argues (Mr. Tres opining as to the materials disclosed by Layfield), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 160–164 (Dr. Micklow contradicting Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the materials disclosed by Layfield). Further, the evidence is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the design of Layfield’s strut, specifically the taper design and mechanism by which the strut connects to the trailer I-beam, that the strut is resilient. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–90 (Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the design and connection mechanism), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 165–175 (Dr. Micklow’s contradictory testimony). Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Additionally, Patent Owner similarly contends that the modifications proposed are redundant of Layfield’s “flexible lower panel 20,” which already “allow[s] flexing when impacting a road object.” PO Resp. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:13–18); see PO Sur-reply 26–27. We disagree. Again, the proposed modifications here are to Layfield’s struts. In the context of Petitioner’s anticipation challenge, we agreed with Patent Owner and found that Petitioner had not established sufficiently on the record that Layfield’s struts were resilient. See supra, § II.D.a.i., ii. Therefore, the proposed modification addressed here, to make Layfield’s struts resilient, does not duplicate the objective of Layfield’s flexible lower panel 20 at least because (a) Layfield’s struts are a different structure than lower panel 20 and (b) modification of Layfield’s struts would provide greater impact protection to other panels aside from just lower panel 20. See Pet. Reply 26–27 (One of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to do so because Rinard and Layfield both seek to provide fairing panels with ‘sufficient flexibility’ to bend when encountering objects.” (citing Ex. 1004, 12:67– 13:4; Ex. 1006, 10:43–50; Ex. 1055 ¶ 47)). We determine that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to look to other similar types of trailer components that are flexible to make further improvements to Layfield’s design. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Third, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the claimed technology by looking to the vertical supports of Rinard’s air scoops to modify the Layfield skirt panels 10 and support struts 58.” PO Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 237–240). Patent Owner asserts that because Layfield’s upper skirt panels are rigid and non-moving one of ordinary skill in the art “would not reasonably expect the hypothetical modified panels (with their reinforcing trusses 36) to move.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that Rinard teaches “an upper skirt panel that is rigid and non-moving” and so it is not reasonable to expect modifying Layfield as proposed would somehow cause Layfield’s fixed skirt panels to be able to move as claimed. PO Sur-reply 27–28 (citations omitted). We disagree for the same reasons discussed above—namely, we find Layfield’s upper skirt panels to be resilient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a resilient strut adapted as claimed by modifying Layfield’s strut in light of Rinard, for the reasons proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 27 (“Applying this solution to the Layfield skirt panel and struts would yield the predictable result of allowing the Layfield skirt panel 10 and struts 58 to absorb greater impacts without having to be repaired or replaced.” (citing Ex. 1021, 7–8, 11–12)).” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017
• SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. / Parrot Inc. v. Drone-Control, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2019 · IPR2018-00207 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–6, 8–11, and 13–15 are anticipated by Thornberg ’983; claims 2, 7, and 12 are obvious over Thornberg ’983 and Karem. The motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response and has not otherwise disputed Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. See Tr. 77:1–6. We find, based on our review of the complete record, that the evidence of record supports a level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with Petitioner’s definition. Our findings are supported by the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and the ’116 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:36–37 (“This invention relates generally to radio controlled toys such as airplanes and helicopters.”); Ex. 1006, 1:8–10 (“The present invention relates to the control of remotely operated vehicles, and more particularly to a variable reference for the control of a remotely operated vehicle.”), see id. at 3:41–44 (“The system provides for the referencing of vehicle commands based on an operator frame of reference so that control commands provided by the operator remain intuitive and independent of the orientation of the vehicle with respect to the operator.”). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it to our discussion below.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Ex. 1006, 5:22–29. We further observe that once the disclosed pitch/roll commands (i.e., command data) are provided to the pitch axis and roll axis transformation functions, the pitch axis transformation 410 and roll axis transformation 412 use transformation equations to determine a transformed pitch stick signal (TPSS) and a transformed roll stick signal (TRSS). See Ex. 1006, 6:17–28. In other words, the flight control computer transforms received command pitch/roll data into TPSS and TRSS commands. In performing this transformation, the pitch axis transformation function 410 and the roll axis transformation function 412 also receive a transformation angle (θ) input. Id. at 5:30–32. Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformation angle θ is determined based on the true heading of the vehicle as determined by the navigation system 36 and the desired vehicle reference and vehicle reference mode. Id. at 5:31–35. As discussed above, we find that the true heading of the vehicle as determined by navigation system 36 provides motion data generated by a sensor. Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformations into TPSS and TRSS take into account transformation angle (θ), which Thornberg ’983 teaches is determined based on the true heading (i.e., motion data) of the vehicle and the control data (pitch/roll commands) received from control panel 200 of the remote operator control. See Ex. 1006, 4:29–33, 5:23–25, 5:36–38. Further, in the operator reference mode, the orientation of the operator/remote control upon activation of the operator mode is used as the reference axis (i.e., operator’s coordinate system). Additionally, as noted in the Petition (see Pet. 30–31), Thornberg ’983 teaches a variable operator reference mode in which the operator reference changes based on changes in the orientation of the operator control panel. Ex. 1006, 7:32–35. Based on the disclosure discussed above, we find that the pitch and roll commands received at lines 405, 415 in the operator mode teach command data in “a first coordinate system from a perspective of the remote control device” as recited in claim 1. Moreover, we find that Thornberg ’983 teaches that the received pitch/roll command data is transformed into control data in “a second coordinate system that is from a perspective of the RC aircraft.” Specifically, Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformation equations 1 and 2 transform the pitch command and roll command based on the difference between the aircraft heading and the reference heading. See Ex. 1066, 7:9–11, 7:19–24. Further, Dr. Hansman testifies that TPSS and TRSS control data control the vehicle in the vehicle’s coordinate system, which is from the perspective of the vehicle. Ex. 1003 ¶ 411. We credit Dr. Hansman’s undisputed testimony in this regard because this testimony is consistent with the disclosure of Thornberg ’983, which teaches, among other things, that “[t]he system provides for the referencing of vehicle commands based on an operator frame of reference so that control commands provided by the operator remain intuitive and independent of the orientation of the vehicle with respect to the operator.” Ex. 1006, 3:41–44.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to modify Thornberg’s control panel 200 to “control” the UAV 100 in a hovering state, i.e., by sending appropriate lift command data to the vehicle when the operator releases the input controls as Karem teaches, in order to facilitate aerial tasks that may involve a hovering state, such as airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair, that Thornberg teaches were “well known” uses of UAVs. Ex. 1006, 1:15-24; Ex. 1003, ¶443. Pet. 45. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale and evidence demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 7, and 12 would have been obvious in view of Thornberg ’983 and Karem. For example, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by the disclosure of Karem, which teaches a remotely-operated vehicle in a hovering state (Ex. 1008, 7:13–23, 32–39, and Thornberg ’983 teaches remotely operated vehicles include helicopters (Ex. 1006, 1:14–17). Further, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Hansman’s undisputed testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Thornberg ’983’s control panel 200 to control UAV 100 in a hovering state, i.e., by sending appropriate lift command data to the vehicle when the operator releases the input controls as Karem teaches, in order to facilitate aerial tasks that may involve a hovering state, such as airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair. Ex. 1003 ¶ 443. This testimony is supported by Thornberg ’983’s teaching that (1) airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair were well known uses of UAVs; and (2) remote operation of UAVs apply to remotely operated helicopters. See Ex. 1006, 1:15–24.” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “In the same manner described in the ’116 patent, we find that the orientation of the control panel in Thornberg ’983 indicates the angular displacement (i.e., position data) of the vehicle relative to the operator mode reference axis because the control panel is directed toward the vehicle. Thornberg ’983’s Figure 2 discloses that the control panel is directly facing the remotely operated vehicle, which is nearly identical to placement of the remote control device and RC aircraft in Figure 5 of the ’116 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:67–4:2, Fig. 5; Ex. 1006, Fig. 2.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,079,116 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,079,116

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.