• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7

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

    “1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,051,066
• Asetek Danmark A/S v. Coolit Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2016 · IPR2015-01276 · APJ Michelle R Osinski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–8, 12, 14, 15, and 18–28 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because Petitioner did not adequately explain the proposed modifications to Kang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The Specification does not provide an explicit definition of the claim term “adjacent.” See Tr. 37:20–21. Petitioner argues that the Specification does use the term “adjacent” to describe something more than simply “next to.” Id. at 7:14–26 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:38–43). In the ’330 patent, “[f]luid inlet opening 114 [is described as] be[ing] positioned adjacent . . . contact region 102b” (Ex. 1001, 4:31–33), even though fluid inlet opening 114 is separated from contact region 102b by walls 110 that extend upwardly from upper surface 102a of heat spreader plate 102 (id. at 3:7–15). We are not persuaded that this use of the term “adjacent” in the ’330 patent necessitates a broader construction than “next to.” This is because fluid inlet opening 114 is next to contact region 102b in that nearly the entirety of fluid inlet opening 114 overlies contact region 102b, as depicted by the dashed lines of Figure 1. Figure 2 shows that microchannel walls 110 define corresponding microchannels through which contact region 102b is positioned immediately below fluid inlet opening 114. Because all elements of thin fluid heat exchangers can be considered relatively close to each other due to the small size of these devices, we determine that “adjacent” in the ’330 patent must mean something more than “close to or nearby,” as asserted by Petitioner. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that a claim interpretation that renders a claim term or phrase superfluous is disfavored). We also are not persuaded that the absence of any intervening structure of the same kind therebetween is sufficient to consider two objects as adjacent to each other in the ’330 patent, as asserted by Petitioner. For example, we would not consider inlet header 112 to be adjacent outlet header 126 in the ’330 patent simply because there are no other elements labeled as “headers” between them. For the foregoing reasons, we construe “adjacent” as “next to” and determine this is the broadest reasonable construction of this term in light of the specification of the ’330 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The principle that a rearrangement of parts is a mere design choice finds its roots in In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1950). In Japikse, claims were held unpatentable because rearranging the position of a starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Id. Petitioner provides no evidence or persuasive technical reasoning that rearrangement of the inlet header so as to be next to a lateral side of Kang’s microfins (as opposed to opposite a topside of Kang’s microfins) would not have modified operation of the heat exchanger device. At most, Petitioner has provided conclusory expert testimony that rearrangement of the inlet header in Kang so that it would satisfy the requirements of claim 1 would not “enhance” the heat removal efficiency/performance of Kang’s heat exchanger device. Ex. 1002 ¶ 49. However, Petitioner has provided no expert testimony as to whether or not rearrangement of the inlet header might otherwise modify (e.g., reduce) the heat removal efficiency/performance of the heat exchanger device. When modifying Kang’s device to place inlet section 31 on a lateral side of microfins 14 (i.e., in contact with the microfins) and to place inlet openings 44 on the corresponding lateral side of flow distributor 40 (Pet. Reply 5), at least a portion of fluid is able to enter directly the microchannels formed by microfins 14 and, thus, bypass flow distributor 40. This is because inlet section 31 is placed next to a side of the fins that corresponds with the ends of the microchannels. Petitioner has not persuaded us that bypassing Kang’s flow distributor 40 would not modify the heat removal/efficiency performance of Kang’s heat exchanger device such that modified Kang would perform as equally well as the embodiment illustrated in Figures 1–3.4 Rather, we determine that bypassing flow distributor 40 would avoid “caus[ing] the fluid to change directions several times” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 30), which would affect mixing, which would, in turn, affect heat transfer (id. at Abstr.). Thus, we are not persuaded that modifying Kang’s 4 We note that when discussing the opposing outlet header (which is already asserted to be next to a lateral side of the microfins in Kang), Petitioner asserts that having fluid flow through the microchannels directly, as opposed to through the flow distributor as intended, would not matter because heat exchange happens in the microchannels. See Tr. 15:13–16:2. Although we do not disagree that heat exchange would take place in the microchannels even if fluid bypasses the flow distributor, we are not persuaded that this means that there would be no modification in the operation of the device. embodiment of Figures 1–3 so as to place inlet section 31 on a lateral side of microfins 14 is a mere design choice that would not affect operation of the device. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Because Petitioner has not specified the orientation of the header regions to the microfins and microchannels in connection with its proposed modification of Kang, we determine that it is unclear if the rearrangement of the header regions proposed by Petitioner is merely a design choice that does not affect the heat removal efficiency/performance of the heat exchanger device. If the header regions of modified Kang are positioned on the sides of microfins 14 corresponding to the ends of the microchannels, at least a portion of fluid could directly enter the microchannels formed by microfins 14, and thus, bypass flow distributor 40 and affect operation of the device. Because the exact configuration of the inlet and outlet header regions in modified Kang has not been set forth with clarity in Petitioner’s challenge, we are not persuaded that the proposed modification to the header regions is merely a design choice, as alleged by Petitioner, that would not affect operation of the device. Similarly, although Petitioner has asserted that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would be easily able to modify Kang’s device to . . . have inlet openings 44 on the corresponding lateral side of flow distributor 40” and that Bhatti teaches this configuration (Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 212, 213; Ex. 1007, Figs. 1, 2); Tr. 38:13–21), Petitioner has not clarified the specific configuration and orientation of lateral side inlet openings in modified Kang. For example, it is unclear if Petitioner proposes to alter Kang to re-orient inlet channels 44 to extend from a first lateral side to an opposing second lateral side of flow distributor 40 (instead of extending from a top side to a bottom side) or to extend Kang’s inlet channels 44 to only one lateral side, and if so, whether modified inlet channels would extend from the top to bottom of the flow distributor on that one lateral side or only along a portion of the lateral side. Because Petitioner has not specified the exact manner in which Kang’s flow distributor 40 would include inlet channels 44 on a lateral side of flow distributor 40 in connection with its proposed modification of Kang, we determine that it is unclear if the modification of inlet channels 44 proposed by Petitioner is merely a design choice that does not affect the heat removal efficiency/performance of the heat exchanger device. If inlet channels 44 extend from a first lateral side to an opposing second lateral side, at least a portion of fluid would be able to bypass the microchannels and, thus, affect operation of the device. Because the exact configuration of inlet channels 44 in modified Kang has not been set forth with clarity in Petitioner’s challenge, we are not persuaded that the proposed modification to inlet channels 44 is merely a design choice, as alleged by Petitioner, that would not affect operation of the device. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not provided sufficient detail in its challenge to support a conclusion that modifying Kang in light of the teachings of Bhatti would be a mere design choice that would not modify the heat exchange functionality of the device.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,746,330 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,746,330
• Ima S.P.A. / Fillshape S.R.L. v. Indag Gesellschaft FÜR Industriebedarf MBH & Co. Betriebs KGInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · IPR2016-01153 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioners did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “as to which portions of Resterhouse Petitioners rely on as teaching each element of claim 1. The rules governing this proceeding require that a petition “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As the Federal Circuit has recently indicated, “[t]he Board is not free to disregard its own regulations.” Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 6694956 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). The Federal Circuit has also emphasized the need, in AIA proceedings, for petitioners to articulate their challenges with specificity in their initial petitions. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). . . . Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.”). In this case, the Petition’s arguments concerning claim 1 fall short of the requirements of § 42.104(b)(4) because the Petition does not link each element of the claim to a particular disclosure or structure in the reference on which Petitioners rely. Specifically, it is unclear which portion of Resterhouse, in Petitioners’ theory, discloses a “transferring assembly” and which portion discloses an “apparatus.” The Petition’s analysis of limitations that include those elements simply reproduces selected excerpts of Resterhouse without linking the structures described in the excerpts to each element of the claim. See Pet. 13–18.” slip op. at 15

  • BurdenDenied

    “as to which portions of Resterhouse Petitioners rely on as teaching each element of claim 1. The rules governing this proceeding require that a petition “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As the Federal Circuit has recently indicated, “[t]he Board is not free to disregard its own regulations.” Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 6694956 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). The Federal Circuit has also emphasized the need, in AIA proceedings, for petitioners to articulate their challenges with specificity in their initial petitions. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). . . . Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.”). In this case, the Petition’s arguments concerning claim 1 fall short of the requirements of § 42.104(b)(4) because the Petition does not link each element of the claim to a particular disclosure or structure in the reference on which Petitioners rely. Specifically, it is unclear which portion of Resterhouse, in Petitioners’ theory, discloses a “transferring assembly” and which portion discloses an “apparatus.” The Petition’s analysis of limitations that include those elements simply reproduces selected excerpts of Resterhouse without linking the structures described in the excerpts to each element of the claim. See Pet. 13–18.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioners have not shown why it would be obvious, based on the disclosures of Sugihara and Hiramoto, for a transferring assembly to simultaneously remove a single pouch and a single spout. We note that in both references, pouch and spout removal are sequential, not simultaneous. Further, Petitioners do not explain what modifications would be made to either reference to accomplish simultaneous removal, nor do Petitioners provide a persuasive reason why a skilled artisan would make such a modification.” slip op. at 23

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,648,017
• Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00711 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted, and claim 25 was held unpatentable as obvious over Hauwiller, the Background of the ’867 patent, and Shibusawa.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “After considering the arguments in the Request for Rehearing and reconsidering the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that the reasoning in our Final Decision misapprehended what is required by claim 25. Claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also now agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’867 patent, and Shibusawa.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also now agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’867 patent, and Shibusawa. As summarized above, Petitioner presented evidence that Shibusawa discloses a map of measurements of soil electrical conductivity, and that combining Shibusawa’s teachings with Hauwiller’s system would have been obvious because electrical conductivity testing is a relatively efficient method for determining soil properties. Pet. 45–46; Ex. 1004, 20:11–16, 23:14–17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 80. As Petitioner points out, the subject matter recited in claim 25 is similar to that of claims 7 and 14, and we determined in our Final Decision that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the obviousness of those claims were persuasive. See Req. Reh’g 5; Dec. 39–40.” slip op. at 5

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,343,867
• Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00709 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing granted; claim 25 held unpatentable as obvious over Hauwiller, the Background of the ’912 patent, and Shibusawa.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “was based on a misapprehension of what is required by claim 25. Req. Reh’g 6. Specifically, Petitioner argues that claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Id. at 1. Petitioner points out that claim 25 requires that the soil electrical conductivity map is used for the calculation of the “site-specific measures of the soil nutrient existing in the field.” Id. at 2. Claim 15 requires that the map of site-specific field characteristic data generated using a satellite image of the agricultural field is used in the calculation of the map of “site-specific soil nutrient amount needed to produce at each site a maximum possible crop yield.” Ex. 1001, 12:7–12. In other words, the map of soil electrical conductivity recited in claim 25 is used in the first calculating step of claim 15, not the second calculating step that uses a map generated through satellite imaging. After considering the arguments in the Request for Rehearing and reconsidering the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that the reasoning in our Final Decision misapprehended what is required by claim 25. Claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’912 patent, and Shibusawa. As summarized above, Petitioner presented evidence that Shibusawa discloses a map of measurements of soil electrical conductivity, and that combining Shibusawa’s teachings with Hauwiller’s system would have been obvious because electrical conductivity testing is a relatively efficient method for determining soil properties. Pet. 47; Ex. 1004, 20:11–16, 23:14–17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 80. As Petitioner points out, the subject matter recited in claim 25 is similar to that of claims 7 and 14, and we determined in our Final Decision that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the obviousness of those claims were persuasive. See Req. Reh’g 5–6; Dec. 34.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “reconsidering the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that the reasoning in our Final Decision misapprehended what is required by claim 25. Claim 25 does not require satellite imaging to create a map of soil electrical conductivity. Applying this corrected understanding of claim 25, we also agree that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious in view of Hauwiller, the Background of the ’912 patent, and Shibusawa. As summarized above, Petitioner presented evidence that Shibusawa discloses a map of measurements of soil electrical conductivity, and that combining Shibusawa’s teachings with Hauwiller’s system would have been obvious because electrical conductivity testing is a relatively efficient method for determining soil properties. Pet. 47; Ex. 1004, 20:11–16, 23:14–17; Ex. 1009 ¶ 80. As Petitioner points out, the subject matter recited in claim 25 is similar to that of claims 7 and 14, and we determined in our Final Decision that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the obviousness of those claims were persuasive. See Req. Reh’g 5–6; Dec. 34.” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,171,912
• Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00899 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three combinations of prior art identified by the Board.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.11” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties’ statements of the level of ordinary skill are not significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,202,395
• Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00898 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three instituted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. 6 The familiarity may have been gained, as proposed by Petitioner, by “approximately three years of experience in combine or agricultural equipment design, including components thereof, such as headers and header height control systems” (Pet. 5 (citation omitted)), but also may have been gained through other experience. sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that under either party’s proposed construction, Cleveland’s sensor arm, including spring 38, is flexible. See infra pages 41–42 (Section III.B.5.a.ii.b)2.b.). Accordingly, we need not choose between either party’s proposed constructions. 2. Other Claim Terms The parties propose constructions for several additional claim terms, including “pre-loaded,” “angular deflection sensing means,” “control means,” “biasing means,” “first stop means,” “second stop means,” “guard means,” and “flange.” Pet. 11–15; Resp. 19–23. Although the parties have some disagreement as to the meaning of several of these terms, there is no dispute that the references upon which we instituted review disclose these elements of the claims.4 Accordingly, there is no controversy as to these terms that requires our resolution in order to ascertain whether the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention in light of the references and arguments before us.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingMixed

    “a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.13” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “e. Conclusion of Obviousness We have considered Petitioner’s evidence and argument and determine that the combination of DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA meets the limitations of claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, with rational underpinning, for combining the teachings of these references. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and determine that they are unpersuasive. The parties do not introduce or rely on objective indicia of nonobviousness. After weighing the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34 would have been obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,202,395
• Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2016 · IPR2015-00709 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious; Petitioner did not show claim 25 would have been obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Johannsen, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the field of this invention “would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Systems Management, Agriculture, Agronomy, or a related degree and would have had several years of experience with precision farming.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 16. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Heiniger, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in this field would have “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in agronomy or a related field, and at least a Masters Degree in a discipline that involves engineering systems using remote sensing data or comparable work experience. Such a person would have had some practical experience integrating these remote sensing systems.” Ex. 2033 ¶ 18; see also PO Resp. 26 (same). Although Dr. Heiniger’s position is not exactly the same as Dr. Johannsen’s, Dr. Heiniger adds that the “[d]ifferences between who Dr. Johannsen and I view as a person of ordinary skill in the art are not material to my opinions . . . .” Ex. 2033 ¶ 19. The differences between Dr. Johannsen’s and Dr. Heiniger’s articulations of the level of ordinary skill in the art are fairly minor. Our analysis below, including the conclusions we reach, would be substantially the same under either proposal. Nevertheless, after considering the evidence of record, we adopt Dr. Heiniger’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, we construed the phrase “calculating a map”5 in claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 17–19, and 24 to mean “performing calculations to produce a map.” Dec. to Inst. 7. With respect to the phrase “maximum possible crop yield” in claims 1, 8, and 15, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “yield goal” and instead applied the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language. Id. at 8–9. We further determined that no other claim term required express construction. Id. at 9. Following institution, neither party challenged those constructions or proposed other terms for construction. Therefore, for the reasons explained in the Decision to Institute, we maintain the constructions set forth therein. 5 We understand the phrase “calculating a map” to have the same construction, regardless of whether it appears as “calculating . . . a map,” “calculate . . . a map,” or “calculating a map.”” slip op. at 6

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

    “calculating nitrogen needs for a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. Hauwiller’s system is open to a variety of recommendation equations, as Patent Owner’s declarant agrees. See Ex. 1006, 8:36–48, 9:18–21, 9:34–38, 13:30–35, 13:39–45; Ex. 1020, 8:11–16. This openness supports the obviousness of employing within Hauwiller’s system a conventional equation (or certain aspects of a conventional equation) such as the one set forth in the Background of the ’912 patent. Further, while the conventional equation includes several variables, a basic teaching of the equation is that in calculating the fertilizer recommendation, the amount of nitrogen already present should be subtracted from the nitrogen needed to realize the yield goal. See Ex. 1001, 1:39–50. Dr. Johannsen’s testimony that “subtraction of existing nutrients from the nutrient amount was a conventional thing to do particularly because it helps reduce leaching due to over fertilization” is consistent with this understanding of the conventional equation. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 71. We also recognize that the ’912 patent describes the equation as being a conventional approach for calculating nitrogen needs “for a field” rather than for a specific site within the field. Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. But Hauwiller recognizes that “[d]esired yield potential varies depending upon the soil characteristics by location” and, for that reason, describes the desirability of constructing “a yield goal map for creating an application map based upon site specific yield goals.” Ex. 1006, 9:32–41 (emphasis added). Thus, Hauwiller teaches the advantages and desirability of a site specific approach. We agree with Petitioner that the “subtracting” step would have been obvious by applying the teachings of the equation in the Background of the ’912 patent to the site-specific approach of Hauwiller. The evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions summarized above, and we agree with Petitioner that claim 15 would have been obvious based on Hauwiller and the prior art described in the Background of the ’912 patent, even taking into account the secondary considerations discussed in Section II.E. below. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, but we do not find them persuasive for the reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not shown the required nexus between the alleged objective indicia of nonobviousness and the merits of the claimed invention. Although the agreements between Petitioner and the former owner of the ’912 patent convey rights under the ’912 patent, they involve significantly more than the pertinent licenses. The 2008 and 2011 agreements convey licenses to a broader portfolio of U.S. and Canadian patents as well as copyrights, trademarks, and a domain name. Ex. 2022, 4–6; Ex. 2023, 4–6. Moreover, the licenses to intellectual property are just one facet of these agreements, the primary purpose of which is “to set forth the terms upon which Geosys shall provide sales, marketing and support for Field InSite as part of the Geosys FarmSat Platform.” Ex. 2022, 2; Ex. 2023, 2. Similarly, the 2012 agreement conveys rights beyond the ’912 patent. Ex. 2024, 2–3. Patent Owner does not point to, and we do not find, any portion of these agreements assigning a particular royalty rate or value for the ’912 patent. Given the breadth of the agreements and the absence of evidence or explanation from Patent Owner concerning nexus, any determination of how much of the value of the agreements is attributable to the ’912 patent would be speculative. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 703 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, the 2012 agreement calls for a lump sum payment for all of the rights conveyed, the amount of which is less than a reasonable estimate of potential litigation costs. Ex. 2024, 2–3. This detracts further from Patent Owner’s argument that the agreements support the nonobviousness of the ’912 patent. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907– 08 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (noting that licensing programs “are not infallible guides to patentability. They sometimes succeed because they are mutually beneficial to the licensed group or because of business judgments that it is cheaper to take licenses than to defend infringement suits, or for other reasons unrelated to the unobviousness of the licensed subject matter.”). Patent Owner’s argument based on its acquisition of the ’912 patent is also unpersuasive. The evidence that Patent Owner cites in support of that argument shows only that The Mosaic Company filed and subsequently dismissed a Canadian patent infringement suit against Patent Owner. See Exs. 2025, 2026.8 Patent Owner does not cite to the agreement by which ownership of the ’912 patent was transferred, nor does Patent Owner provide the details of that agreement. The evidence Patent Owner relies on does not support Patent Owner’s argument that its decision to acquire the ’912 patent constitutes objective evidence of nonobviousness of the ’912 patent. Finally, the commercial success argument Patent Owner presents in a” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 7,171,912 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,171,912
• Geosys-Intl, Inc. v. Farmers Edge Precision Consulting, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2016 · IPR2015-00708 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the three instituted combinations of Hauwiller, the patent Background, and, for specified claims, Dickson or Shibusawa.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The differences between Dr. Johannsen’s and Dr. Heiniger’s articulations of the level of ordinary skill in the art are fairly minor. Our analysis below, including the conclusions we reach, would be substantially the same under either proposal. Nevertheless, after considering the evidence of record, we adopt Dr. Heiniger’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim 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). In the Decision to Institute, we construed the phrase “calculating a map”4 in claims 1–3, 12, 14, 20–22, and 28 to mean “performing calculations to produce a map.” Dec. to Inst. 6–7. With respect to the phrase “maximum possible crop yield” in claims 1, 14, and 20, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed meaning of that term as “yield goal” and instead applied the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language. Id. at 7–8. We further determined that no other claim term required express construction. Id. at 8. Following institution, neither party challenged those constructions or proposed other terms for construction. On the record now before us, we do not discern reason to deviate from the constructions set forth in the Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 5

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

    “a “conventional method” that is used for calculating nitrogen needs for a field. Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. Hauwiller’s system is open to a variety of recommendation equations, as Patent Owner’s declarant agrees. See Ex. 1005, 8:36–48, 9:18–21, 9:34–38, 13:30–35, 13:39–45; Ex. 1020, 8:11–16. This openness supports the obviousness of employing within Hauwiller’s system a conventional equation (or certain aspects of a conventional equation) such as the one set forth in the Background of the ’620 patent. Furthermore, while the conventional equation includes several variables, a basic teaching of the equation is that in calculating the fertilizer recommendation, the amount of nitrogen already present should be subtracted from the nitrogen needed to realize the yield goal. See Ex. 1001, 1:39–50. Dr. Johannsen’s testimony that “subtraction of existing nutrients from the nutrient amount was a conventional thing to do particularly because it helps reduce leaching due to over fertilization” is consistent with this understanding of the conventional equation. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 71. We also recognize that the ’620 patent describes the equation as being a conventional approach for calculating nitrogen needs “for a field” rather than for a specific site within the field. Ex. 1001, 1:39–40. But Hauwiller recognizes that “[d]esired yield potential varies depending upon the soil characteristics by location” and, for that reason, describes the desirability of constructing “a yield goal map for creating an application map based upon site specific yield goals.” Ex. 1005, 9:32–41 (emphasis added). Thus, Hauwiller teaches the advantages and desirability of a site-specific approach. We agree with Petitioner that the “subtracting” step would have been accomplished by applying the teachings of the equation in the Background of the ’620 patent to the site-specific approach of Hauwiller. The evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions summarized above, and we agree with Petitioner that all of the features of claims 1 and 20 are disclosed in Hauwiller and the prior art described in the Background of the ’620 patent, and that there is adequate reason to combine the teachings of the prior art. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, but we do not find them persuasive for the reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s and Dr. Heiniger’s opposing views. We observe that Dr. Heiniger does not explain adequately the basis of his opinion that, despite the teachings of the prior art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “thought that yield data from previous years would not work for that purpose” because a skilled artisan would have viewed yield data as “fundamentally different” from a measure of biomass. See Ex. 2033 ¶ 167. We also do not discern that either Patent Owner or Dr. Heiniger adequately considers that, in view of the teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “leaf area index” is a known measure of biomass. See Ex. 1001, 1:63–65. In that regard, they do not explain why a skilled artisan would not understand readily that leaf area index constitutes the type of field history data and previous crop information that Hauwiller contemplates as useful in developing a map for a given field. Accordingly, on the record before us, we conclude that Petition has shown where all the features of claims 2 and 21 are found in the prior art, and that there is articulated reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hauwiller and the Background of the ’620 patent. Patent Owner’s and Dr. Heiniger’s general views to the contrary, in our view, do not account appropriately for how a skilled artisan would have understood the teachings of the prior art.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,889,620 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,889,620
• Care N’ Care Insurance Co., Inc. / Trizetto Corp. v. Integrated Claims Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · CBM2015-00063 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6, 9, 15, and 20 are anticipated by Lech; and claims 6, 8, 12, 13, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner proposes construing “field” as “computer software field.” Prelim. Resp. 24–33. We see no reason to interpret “fields” as “computer software fields.” We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is circular insofar as the construction includes the entire term being construed. See Pet. Reply 6. Further, as discussed below, even if “fields” were interpreted as “computer software fields,” the complete record persuades us that Petitioners have shown unpatentability of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners propose that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “digital attachment” recited by claim 9 is “information that can be digitized.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 32, 33, 36; Ex. 1003, 11:18–19, 20– 35). For the purposes of this Decision, we need not construe this or any other term expressly. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “unitary data stream” as “transmitted set of information.” Dec. on Inst. 12. Patent Owner states that it “agrees that such definition is the broadest reasonable construction.” PO Resp. 24; see also Pet. Reply 4 (stating “Patent Owner does not dispute that the correct construction of ‘unitary data stream’ for this proceeding is ‘transmitted set of information.’”). Based on our review of the complete record, we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from this interpretation.” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “device operatively coupled to a computer network receiving and transferring or transmitting contents of fields of a unitary data stream. Based on the full record before us, we determine that the subject matter of the challenged claims, when considered as a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination. In particular, the complete record persuades us that the idea of transmitting or copying information from a source to a destination represents a disembodied, well-known concept, i.e., a basic building block of human ingenuity and that does not rise beyond the level of an abstract idea. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court that the claims of the asserted patent are drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“[I]n applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the ‘“buildin[g] block[s]”’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303). We also agree with Petitioners that the” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,178,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,178,020

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.