• Anthony Inc. v. Controltec, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2026 · IPR2025-00636 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 8–12 over Carter; claims 1–20 over Carter and Bunch; claims 3, 9, 10, and 19 over Carter, Bunch, and King; and claims 2, 11–13, and 17 over Carter, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony that we limit the level of ordinary skill to “refrigerated display cases.” Limiting the level of skill to an engineer with experience “working with refrigerated display cases” does not relate to the technology disclosed, and the invention claimed, in the ’847 patent, which is controlling condensation and conserving energy. E.g., Ex. 1001, 2:23–27 (“The invention is proactive in preventing condensation from forming by activating frame/door heaters before the dew point temperature at frame and door surfaces is reached. Power is then cycled off at a set point above dew point to save energy.” (emphases added)). An electrical engineer with a bachelor’s degree and 2 years of experience focused on lighting systems for refrigerated display cases would have “experience working with refrigerated display cases,” and thus meet Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Such a person, however, would not be experienced in controlling condensation, dew point sensor positioning, and condensation algorithm design, which is the focus of the disclosed and claimed invention, and which Mr. Pollock states “materially affect performance, energy use, and reliability” in controlling condensation in a refrigerated display case. Ex. 2037 ¶ 10. We also note that Mr. Pollock’s qualifications include a “B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, . . . with focus on thermal and mechanical systems, thermodynamics, and HVAC&R (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration).” Ex. 2037 ¶ 3. His academic focus is consistent with our determination of the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’847 patent, finding Mr. Pollock’s testimony on this issue too general, and crediting Dr. Henze’s testimony with substantial probative weight, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. We” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’847 patent, finding Mr. Pollock’s testimony on this issue too general, and crediting Dr. Henze’s testimony with substantial probative weight, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. We more experience will offset less academic training, as did Dr. Henze (Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Thus, in this proceeding a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a comparable field and at least three to five years of professional experience working with heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVAC&R) systems, and that more academic training will offset less experience, and more experience will offset less academic training. 2. Dr. Henze Is a Person of Ordinary Skill Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Henze is not a person of ordinary skill and thus is not qualified to provide expert testimony in this proceeding. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Patent Owner’s argument requires a level of ordinary skill based on “working with refrigerated display cases,” which we have not adopted. PO Resp. 27. Based on the level of skill adopted in the previous section, we determine that Dr. Henze is qualified to provide expert testimony in this proceeding C. Claim Construction We construe each claim “using the same claim construction standard” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Whether the preamble is or is not limiting is not necessary to resolve this controversy because it would not affect the outcome of this case. We also note that it is beyond reasonable dispute that Bunch, applied with Carter against all the challenged claims, discloses display cases with glass doors. Ex. 1006, 1:14–16. Bunch also discloses that, in the display cases, “[t]o combat condensation and frost, heaters are installed in refrigerator doors and frames, which raise the temperature of the door or frame sufficiently to eliminate condensation.” Id. at 1:24–26. slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). The Federal Circuit has laid out two separate tests to determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, i.e., whether reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). These two tests are: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id.; see also Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Importantly, ‘the scope of any field of endeavor will vary with the factual description of each invention.’ Unlike the reasonable-pertinence test, the field-of-endeavor test does not look to the problem that the patent purports to address. It is enough that the prior art reference falls within the relevant field of endeavor of the patent-in-suit.”) (citations omitted); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To determine if art is analogous, we look to ‘the purposes of both the invention and the prior art.’ If a reference disclosure and the claimed invention have a same purpose, the reference relates to the same problem, which supports an obviousness rejection.” (citations omitted)); see also Nielsen Co. (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., 186 F.4th 1363, 1369–1370 (Fed. Cir. 2026) (providing a comprehensive summary and analysis of the applicable law concerning analogous art)” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,421,847 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,421,847
• Anthony Inc. v. Controltec, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 25, 2026 · IPR2025-00559 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the five asserted grounds based on Carter, Beatenbough, King, Gatling, and Kotani.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find unpersuasive Mr. Pollock’s testimony that we limit the level of ordinary skill to “refrigerated display cases” because defining the level of skill as an engineer with experience “working with refrigerated display cases” does not relate to the technology disclosed and claimed in the ’181 patent, which is controlling condensation and conserving energy. E.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–21 (“The invention is proactive in preventing condensation temperature at frame and door surfaces is reached. Power is then cycled off at a set point above dew point to save energy.” (emphases added)). An electrical engineer with a bachelor’s degree and 2 years of experience focused on lighting systems for refrigerated display cases would have “experience working with refrigerated display cases,” and thus meet Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Such a person, however, would not be experienced in controlling condensation, dew point sensor positioning, and condensation algorithm design, which is the focus of the disclosed and claimed invention, and which Mr. Pollock states “materially affect performance, energy use, and reliability” in controlling condensation in a refrigerated display case. Ex. 2014 ¶ 11. We also note that Mr. Pollock’s qualifications are a “B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, cum laude, from Drexel University (1998), with focus on thermal and mechanical systems, thermodynamics, and HVAC&R (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration).” Ex. 2014 ¶ 3. Accordingly, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’181 patent, finding Mr. Pollock’s testimony on this issue too general, and crediting Dr. Henze’s testimony with substantial probative weight, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. We modify it to state that more academic training will offset less experience, and more experience will offset less academic training, as did Dr. Henze (Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Thus, in this proceeding a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a comparable field and at least three to five years of professional experience working with heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “The fundamental role of expert testimony is that “the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact [here, the Board] to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). The testimony must be “based on sufficient facts or data” (id. at 702(b)); must be “the product of reliable principles and methods” (id. at 702(c)); and must reflect “a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case” (id. at 702(d)). We determine, based on the record before us, that Dr. Henze’s Declaration testimony meets these requirements. He provides, as required, the facts and data to support his testimony. Indeed, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Code of Federal Regulations require him to do so. 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.”). Expert testimony that “merely repeats, verbatim, the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support,” or that “does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support” the testimony is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (Precedential) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 31

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, whether the preamble is or is not limiting is not argued by Petitioner. Moreover, whether the preamble is or is not limiting is not necessary to resolve this controversy because it would not affect the outcome of this case. 2. “Adapted for” Patent Owner asserts that the term “adapted for” in independent claims 1 and 8 has its “plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 14. Patent Owner does not, however, provide us with a specific identification of what is the “plain and ordinary” meaning. Petitioner does not address a specific construction for this term. Thus, it is not in controversy and we need not specifically construe this term. slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992))). The Federal Circuit has laid out two separate tests to determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, i.e., whether one of ordinary skill in the art would even look to the teachings of that reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). These two tests are: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id.; see also Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Importantly, ‘the scope of any field of endeavor will vary with the factual description of each invention.’ Unlike the reasonable-pertinence test, the field-of-endeavor test does not look to the problem that the patent purports to address. It is enough that the prior art reference falls within the relevant field of endeavor of the patent-in-suit.”) (citations omitted); Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To determine if art is analogous, we look to ‘the purposes of both the invention and the prior art.’ If a reference disclosure and the claimed invention have a same purpose, the reference” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 7,207,181 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,207,181
• Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Willow Blossom Holdco LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-01296 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–46 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of Chang, Fang, Yuen, Khalil, Park, and Chen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field and at least two years of experience designing human breast pump equipment” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–18). Mr. Bauer’s cited testimony supports Petitioner’s assertion.” slip op. at 16

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

    “[parent application to the application that matured into the ’380 patent], the Examiner construed the term ‘self-contained, in-bra wearable device’ to mean ‘complete, or having all that is needed, in itself’ and is capable of being worn in a bra.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1005, 2290) (emphasis omitted). According to Petitioner, “PO did not dispute this construction, and Petitioner applies it herein.” Id. Petitioner also states that “[o]ther terms of the Challenged Claims should receive their plain and ordinary meaning, and no formal claim constructions are necessary in this proceeding because ‘claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Id. (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 69–70). Again, because Patent Owner did not file a Response, we exercise our discretion and look to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. We note that in the Preliminary Response Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, no claim terms require construction to resolve the prior art grounds raised in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 19. According to specific construction, any such terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification.” Id. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). There are no claim terms in controversy. Accordingly, we need not construe any terms for our analysis.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Petitioner contends (Pet. 17) that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Chang’s breast pump device as suggested by Fang” to achieve four benefits: (1) “to facilitate convenient cleaning and maintenance” (Pet. 19 (citing Ex, 1003 ¶ 102)); (2) “to facilitate more rapid assembly and disassembly (e.g., during use)” (id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 105)); (3) “as a particularly effective and suitable option to generate negative” slip op. at 34

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

    “a breast pump device having “a diaphragm pump that generates negative air pressure.” Pet. 33; see also id. at 38. Petitioner explains Chang’s pump “generates suction by cyclical compression and decompression of a conduit or flex-tube, and expressly notes that other configurations were known and suitable.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 22, 25, 28, 68, 79, 84–86). Chang, however, does not mention, specifically, that Chang’s pump is a “diaphragm” pump. We note, however, that this claim clause does not state or require any specific type of pump. It merely requires a “pump.” Clause 1[e]/29[e], discussed below, however, does require a “diaphragm” pump. Petitioner here merely lays the foundation for this later clause by asserting that “Fang provides a straightforward suggestion of a diaphragm pump including a diaphragm housing component formed in a wall of the pump housing.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 24–25, Fig. 7; Ex. 1003 ¶ 97). Thus, Petitioner asserts, Fang teaches “an ‘air pump’ in pneumatic connection with the diaphragm that serves to generate negative air pressure,” and Chang teaches “the location of pump components (e.g., ‘motor’ [46]).” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 72, 80, Fig, 6A; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 19, 24). Petitioner then asserts that “the ‘air pump’ components of the combined device are positioned within the pump housing,” and the air pump is powered by Chang’s rechargeable battery. Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 72, 80).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,413,380 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,413,380
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Chien-Min SungAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00533 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 3–8 over Chou and Sung ’479; claims 6–7 also over SungECS; and claim 2 over Goers.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We secondly conclude a POSITA would have had at least two years of experience designing and/or developing CMP technology per Patent Owner’s formulation, but we reject Patent Owner’s additional contention that this experience must include designing and/or developing pad dressers specifically. The ’270 patent claims are directed to the structure of a pad dresser, not to a method of making a pad dresser. See Ex. 1001, 17:35– 18:38. According to the ’270 patent specification, the claimed pad dresser structure is designed to condition a polishing pad so the pad may be used to attain “high performance levels in aspects such as uniformity of polished wafer, smoothness of the IC circuitry, removal rate for productivity, longevity of consumables for CMP economics, etc.” during a CMP process. Id. at 1:20–24 (Background of the Invention). Thus, the ’270 patent’s invention generally focuses on optimizing a pad dresser structure to achieve desired results in a CMP process, not necessarily on how to manufacture a pad dresser. As such, we reject Petitioner’s POSITA formulation requiring “experience in the field of integrated circuit processing and fabrication techniques” (Pet. 19) as too generic in the context of the ’270 patent’s claimed invention. We also conclude, in view of the ’270 patent disclosures discussed above, that Dr. Tsai’s opinion that ordinary skill requires experience with manufacturing pad dressers (see Ex. 2011 ¶ 28) is too conclusory and lacking in evidentiary support to be persuasive. See Best Med. v. Elekta, 46 F.4th at 1353 (“The patent’s purpose can also be informative.”).” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “The Federal Circuit has held: “To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case — like for claim construction, validity, or infringement — a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.”9 Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Commission, 22 F.4th 1369, 1375–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., 116 F.4th 1335, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (holding that the proffered expert does not need to have acquired the 9 Petitioner cites the Practice Guide’s statements that there is “no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field” and “[a] person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’” Practice Guide 34 (citing SEB v. Montgomery Ward, 594 F.3d at 1373; Sundance v. DeMonte, 550 F.3d at 1363–64). To the extent there is any tension between the Practice Guide (issued in 2019) and the Kyocera holding (issued in 2022), we apply the latter here.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine Dr. Shanfield has sufficient education and experience to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’270 patent. Dr. Shanfield’s Ph.D. in physics satisfies the educational prerequisite of at least a bachelor’s degree in an engineering related field such as physics. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 2, App. A. Furthermore, his advanced degree (Ph.D. in physics) versus ordinary skill (a bachelor’s degree in an engineering related field) provides considerable leeway when turning to the experiential component for ordinary skill. Nonetheless, Dr. Shanfield also has at least two years of experience with designing and developing CMP technology per the experience prerequisite, as follows. Dr. Shanfield worked at Raytheon Corporation for over 10 years, during which he “worked directly with engineers in the selection, installation, and optimization of several chemo-mechanical polishing systems (CMP), including analysis of operational maintenance and performance monitoring,” and he “directly participated in establishing the required metrology (optical thickness monitoring) for maintaining polishing uniformity standards.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 3 (emphasis added). He later joined Draper Laboratory in 2003, where he currently is the Division Leader of Advanced Hardware Development. See id. ¶ 5. During Dr. Shanfield’s time at Draper, the laboratory “acquired several semiconductor-grade CMP systems for the purpose of fabricating multi-chip modules and for planarization operations in MEMS devices,” and he was “involved in their operation and optimization.” Id. (emphasis added). When asked during a deposition whether he is “an expert in CMP equipment design,” Dr. Shanfield stated he is “very familiar with the design of CMP equipment” because he has “seen many systems” and “installed or supervised the installation of systems.” Ex. 2003, 17:22–19:3. He testified he has “designed apparatus that worked with CMP equipment” although he has not “designed the CMP equipment itself.” Id. at 18:13–19. As an example of being “involved in the manufacture of CMP pad dressers” specifically, Dr. Shanfield stated that during his time at Raytheon, he worked with other professionals “to use the CMP system to process MEMS, M-E-M-S, devices” which “needed a certain kind of planarization process [that] required constant conditioning,” so the team “had to try to fabricate something that would provide conditioning that would last longer.” Id. at 19:4–20:9. Thus, we conclude Dr. Shanfield qualifies as a POSITA pertaining to” slip op. at 13

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

    “apply the same claim construction standard “used in the federal courts, in other words, the claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),” which is articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 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)). Under the Phillips standard, the “words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner proposes constructions for terms: “superabrasive,” “protrusion,” “sharp portion,” and “attitude.” Pet. 20–21. Patent Owner does not propose constructions for any claim term. See generally, PO Resp. We discern constructions of these claim phrases or others are not required for the purposes of this Decision. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,974,270 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,974,270
• Koki Holdings America Ltd. v. Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00263 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR for claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims would be unpatentable over Haley and Lai.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION We have determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on each asserted ground. PGS Geophysical, 891 F.3d at 1360 (A decision to institute is a “yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.”).” slip op. at 42

  • BurdenInstituted

    “limitations of clauses 1.3 and 1.4, but concedes that Haley does not disclose that its driver member has “at least one longitudinal edge with a plurality of spaced-apart protrusions,” as required by clause 1.4. Petitioner further asserts, however, that it would have been obvious “to replace Haley’s hydraulic lifter with the claimed ‘lifter,’ disclosed by [Lai]”. Pet. 13. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Dr. Vallee’s cited Declaration testimony provides his opinion on this issue, which is consistent with Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner also asserts that “Lai discloses an electrically-powered, mechanical lifting mechanism with a structure that is essentially identical to the ‘lifter member’ disclosed in the ’776 patent. Pet. 13. Petitioner provides side-by-side colored figures from the ’776 patent and from Lai, reproduced below, to illustrate its argument. Pet. 14. According to Petitioner, the side-by-side comparison of Petitioner’s colored versions of Fig. 12, from the ’776 patent, with Petitioner’s colored versions of Figs. 4 A–D, reproduced above, illustrate why and how the proposed modification would have been obvious. As described by Petitioner, the “lifter member” of the ’776 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow), with pins 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:30–46, 16:34–48, Fig. 12). Petitioner also cites the “two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480” shown in Figs. 31, 33 of the ’776 patent. Id. Petitioner also asserts that, as shown in the side-by-side comparison” slip op. at 33

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner asserts the term “lifter member” in the claims of the ’776 patent is “a means-plus-function term” because the claims “lack any ‘recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof’ for the ‘lifter’ element.” Pet. 7 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)). Petitioner also asserts “[t]he Federal Circuit held that the term ‘lifter member’ in the related patents is a means-plus-function term subject to §112(f).” Pet. 7. Petitioner cites no authority for this assertion. We understand this assertion to refer to the decision in Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022), identified by Petitioner as a related matter. Pet. 2. In this case, which involved patents from the same family as the ’776 patent (see Section I.C of this Decision), the Federal Circuit concluded that “§ 112 ¶ 6 applies to the ‘lifter member’ limitation, and it must be construed to cover only ‘the structure, materials, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to the claimed function and equivalents thereof.’” Id. at 22 F.4th 1379–1381. “Where multiple patents derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner: fails to comply with the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) to specifically identify the structure in the specification associated with that element. As ‘lifter’ is present in every challenged claim under all four grounds, Petitioner’s failure to provide a claim construction for ‘lifter’ is fatal to its Petition. Prelim. Resp. 13. We disagree. First, the claims in the ’776 patent do not use the single word “lifter” alone. The term used in some of the claims, see, e.g., independent claims 1 and 17, and the claims dependent from claims 1 or 17, is “lifter member.” We recognize that the written description in the ’776 patent states “the rotary-to-lifter 100 is also sometimes referred to herein as a ‘lifter member,’ or simply as a ‘lifter.’” Ex. 1001, 9:5–7. This suggests that that term “lifter” is intended to mean the “lifter member,” which makes the use of either term a distinction without a substantive difference. Moreover, neither independent claims 9 or 24, nor the claims dependent from claims 9 and 24, use the word “lifter” or “lifter member. Second, as stated in Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply, the Petition “identifies the portions of the specification that describe the corresponding structure for the ‘lifter’ when comparing its structure to that of the Lai prior art.” Prelim. Reply 1. The Petition provides a colored version of Figure 12 from the ’776 patent (reproduced below) and identifies the following corresponding structures from the Specification of the ’776 Patent: The “lifter member” of the ’776 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow [ ]), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’776 patent, 9:30–46, 16:34–48, Fig. 12. The ’776 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. [citing] ’776 patent, 32:15–30, 32:48–63. Petition at 13. Based on the record before us, we determine that this identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has identified the correct corresponding structure. To the extent the parties wish to further address the construction of this claim limitation, they may do so during trial, as permitted by our rules.” slip op. at 16

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

    “to mean “a chamber that is distinct from the displacement volume of the hollow cylinder and contains part of the working air volume during operation.” Pet. 8. According to Petitioner “there is nothing in the intrinsic record or any of the claims of the ’776 patent that prevents the ‘main storage chamber’ from being in the hollow cylinder, so long as it is distinct from its separately-recited ‘displacement volume.’” Id. at 9 (emphases added). Patent Owner asserts that “[g]rounds 2 and 4 each requires this Board to interpret the ‘storage chamber’ to be the same structure as the hollow cylinder.” Prelim. Resp. 31. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he Federal Circuit, considering both parties’ claim construction arguments, rejected that construction.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide any citation to support its reference to the Federal Circuit decision. It appears to be a reference to the Kyocera decision considering review of the ITC determination. See Kyocera, 22 F.4th at 1383. That decision, however, construed claims in a related patent to “require two distinct structures: the main storage volume and a smaller “hollow cylinder” contained within the main storage volume. Based on the record before us, Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the Federal Circuit’s construction, which states two structures can be distinct even if one distinct structure is “contained within” the other distinct structure. Although the parties dispute the construction of the “storage chamber” claim limitation, this dispute relates only to Grounds 2 and 4. See Prelim. Resp. 31. We need not resolve it to determine whether to institute review. The parties are welcome to develop their arguments regarding this claim limitation during trial. 3. Conclusion Regarding Claim Construction Our claim construction analyses in this decision to institute a trial do not preclude the parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during trial. Indeed, the parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general, is an issue to be addressed at trial. Claim construction will be determined at the close of all the evidence and after any hearing. The parties are expected to assert all their claim construction arguments and evidence in the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner’s Reply, or otherwise during trial, as permitted by our rules.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,241,776
• Koki Holdings America Ltd. v. Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00261 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Haley anticipates claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20 and Haley with Lai renders the remaining claims obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “Patent Owner argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition based on alleged deficiencies in the Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “even if arguments as to a few claims might have been properly presented in the Petition, a decision to institute here would require the Board to address—for the first time and with no Petitioner input—critical claim construction issues affecting nearly every claim” in contravention of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Prelim. Resp. 33–35. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), or that critical and unresolved claim interpretation issues justifying discretionarily denying the Petition exist. We, therefore, decline to deny institution on this basis. E. Claims 1, 7, 8, 17, and 20: Anticipation by Haley” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “1. Lifter The Petition contends that the “lifter” limitation is a means-plus- function limitation, Pet. 7, which Patent Owner does not dispute, Prelim. Resp. 10–14. Patent Owner argues, however, that Petitioner has “fail[ed] to identify any structure in the ’007 Patent to perform the claimed function.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We disagree. Petitioner identifies the structures in the Specification corresponding to the “lifter” as follows: The “lifter” (“lifter member”) of the ’007 patent includes a rotatable cam lifter 100 (yellow below left), with pin 104, 106, and 108 (green) on its face surface that engage protrusions 92 (blue) on the driver member 90 (orange). ’007 patent, 9:36–52, 16:39–53, Fig. 12. The ’007 patent also discloses two-pin variants: lifter members 465 and 480 in Figs. 31, 33. ’007 patent, 32:23–38, 32:56–33:4. Pet. 17. This identification of corresponding structure is sufficient to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We also note that at this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute that Petitioner has correctly identified the corresponding structure. The parties may further address the proper interpretation of “lifter” at trial.” slip op. at 7

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

    “gas pressure system” recited in the preamble of independent claims 1 and 17. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner, through its comparison of claims 1 and 17 to Haley, improperly implies that the “gas pressure system” can be “limited to a distinct portion of a power tool.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner contends that such an interpretation is improper because the “gas pressure system” must refer to “the entire system,” because the “structure of the claims themselves . . . include[s] . . . every component of the tool.” Id. We disagree. The “gas pressure system” recited in the preambles of claims 1 and 17 expressly refers to a system that is “for a power tool” and thus does not necessarily refer to “the entire” tool or “every component of the tool.” Ex. 1001, 39:6 (claim 1), 40:51 (claim 17). Neither claim 1 nor claim 17 recites, for example, the lifter or driver, which are required elements of an “entire” tool. Id. at 39:6–22 (claim 1), 40:51–67 (claim 17). The lifter and driver are introduced in dependent claims 2 and 18. Id. at 39:23–30 (claim 2), 41:1–9 (claim 18). Still other necessary components of a tool, e.g., a motor and power source, are introduced in dependent claims 5 and 19. Id. at 39:40–42 (claim 5), 41:10–13 (claim 19). By contrast to claims 1 and 17, independent claims 9 and 14 recite a “portable fastener driving tool” and expressly recite many necessary components of such a tool including the driver, lifter, prime mover, and power source. Id. at 39:54 (claim 9), 40:20 (claim 14). Accordingly, we find that the “gas pressure system” of claims 1 and 17 broadly refers to a portion of a power tool rather than the “entire system” or “every component of the tool.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,034,007
• Stara S.A.-Indústria De Implementos Agrícolas v. Agco CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01459 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Petitioner has the burden of proof. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or agricultural engineering, or a related study, and two years of experience building or using agricultural implements, such as cultivators, planters, or other implements, or an equivalent combination of education and experience.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–66).” slip op. at 13

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

    “J. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner argues that the Board should exercise discretion, and deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office during prosecution. See Prelim. Resp. 47–48. We need not reach this argument having denied institution on the merits.” slip op. at 46

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

    “Patent Owner states “Patent Owner agrees with the Petition that no construction is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Patent Owner contends “the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘parallel,’ as used in independent Claims 1 and 17, does not include ‘transverse,’ as used in Hubalek.” Id. Patent Owner further contends “the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘a hinged joint,’ as used in independent Claims 1 and 17, does not include a ‘ball joint.’” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 45–51). Additionally, Patent Owner contends the ordinary and customary meaning of claim 17 is that the preamble is limiting. Id. at 15–17. Patent Owner also believes the preamble of claim 17 is limiting. Id. at 16. We do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. We do not believe any claim term requires express claim construction, as both parties agree that no construction is necessary. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,665,989
• Bote, LLC v. Steamboat Paddlesports, LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00892 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1–20 after finding abandonment, resulting in cancellation of all challenged claims.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “As noted in the Scheduling Order, “[i]f Patent Owner elects not to file a response to the Petition, Patent Owner must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board.” [Paper 15, 9.] Thus, Patent Owner has three options: 1) file a response by February 18, 2025, 2) arrange a conference call in accordance with the Scheduling Order, or 3) stipulate a revised due date with Petitioner and file a response by the stipulated due date. Patent Owner must appoint counsel to proceed with any of these options, which Patent Owner should do without delay. Patent Owner’s failure to proceed with one of these options could be viewed as an abandonment of this proceeding. And such abandonment would be construed as Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment against itself (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4)), resulting in cancellation of all of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Not reached

    “Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment shall be entered against Patent Owner as to claims 1–20 of the ’466 patent under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b).4 FURTHER ORDERED that this paper constitutes a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) holding that claims 1–20 of the ’466 patent are unpatentable based on the adverse judgment; and “not made any attempt whatsoever to contact Petitioner regarding this IPR.” Ex. 1027 ¶ 7. 3 Patent Owner is reminded of the applicable estoppel provisions in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3). 4 Petitioner filed a motion asking for a finding that Patent Owner had abandoned the proceedings and constructively requested adverse judgment against itself. See Paper 19; Ex. 3002. Petitioner’s motion is dismissed as moot in view of our entry of adverse judgment for the reasons expressed herein. The same applies to Petitioner’s request to submit supplemental evidence. See Ex. 3003.” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,862,466
• Head Sport GmbH v. Vermont Safety Developments LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-01099 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show that the prior art met the claims under the Board’s construction of “release logic.”

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Other 314aNot reached

    “Thus, based in part on the “relatively minimal proceedings” in the District Court, and the “[t]he possibility of significant simplification” for the District Court from our claim construction of the term “release logic,” we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to discretionarily deny the petition. Moreover, we need not address Patent Owner’s contentions concerning discretionary denial because, as discussed below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits in demonstrating unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’953 patent. See MillerKnoll, Inc. v. Aaron DeJule, IPR2023-01428, Paper 8, 10 (PTAB March 22, 2024).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We now turn to the merits of Petitioner’s asserted Grounds of unpatentability. Analysis of Claims We focus our analysis on the term “release logic,” which appears in all the challenged claims. As we explained above, we determined that the term “release logic” along with its recited functions should be construed under Section 112 ¶ 6 to cover “corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof,” that perform the recited functions. Petitioner did not identify how the asserted prior art described those structures or their equivalents. Instead, as discussed above, Petitioner relied on Patent Owner’s preliminary construction in the District Court, which Patent Owner identified in wholly functional terms as a “specific sequence of actions.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1010; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53); Prelim. CC Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1010, 5). Thus, Petitioner’s analysis fails to address how the prior art meets the limitations set forth in the claims as we have interpreted those claims. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Thus we deny institution of an inter partes review. See Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, IPR2024-00319, Paper 16, slip op. 16–23 (PTAB Jun. 24, 2024) (holding that because Petitioner’s obviousness showing was based on an incorrect claim construction, Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a claim limitation was disclosed by, or would have been obvious over, the cited reference).” slip op. at 49

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “be persuasive, we conclude that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have understood “release logic” to refer to, or to have a definite meaning as the name for structure. Accordingly, we find that any presumption that the claims at issue do not invoke § 112, ¶ 6 is overcome, and we conclude that “release logic” introduces claim language that is properly interpreted under § 112, ¶ 6. Dr. Hull’s testimony in the District Court appears to address only the embodiment disclosed in Figures 9–11 of the ’953 patent. He did not opine on the other embodiments disclosed in the patent, such as the embodiment in Figures 22–24 disclosing electronic third-quadrant release-logic binding system 2204. However, his testimony that the words of the claim would not be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to have definite meaning as the name for structure remains persuasive.” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “sophistication of the technology; and (5) educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. ¶ 30. Dr. Hull fails to state whether these factors were relied upon in forming his opinion, and if so, he also fails to state the underlying facts or data relating to these factors on which the opinion is based. There is no evidence to support why an “advanced degree” in mechanical engineering and five years of relevant experience is required. His opinion is supported only by his statement that he is “familiar with the technology at issue here and the state of the art at the time the application leading to the ’953 patent was filed.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 31. Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Here, based on Dr. Hull’s extensive experience, we give his testimony some, but little, weight. Patent Owner states that “for purposes of this Preliminary Response only, VSD does not now dispute the definition of the POSITA as set forth by Dr. Hull.” Prelim. Resp. 7. We note that Patent Owner’s position is based on Dr. Hull’s full testimony, not the excerpt asserted by Petitioner. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the limited record before us, we determine, based on Dr. Hull’s testimony, the cited prior art, and Patent Owner’s qualified agreement with Dr. Hull’s testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technology would have had an advanced degree in mechanical engineering or a related discipline and five years of experience in either ski binding design, manufacture, or testing; research concerning ski bindings and related equipment; or the development of standards concerning ski bindings or related equipment. This level of skill is approximate, and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 25

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,523,953
• Global Shade Corporation v. With-U E-Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00580 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 15–19 are unpatentable over Rousselle, Tsai, Ohnishi, Hoober, and Seo, so the revised motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Although not identical, the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts construction is unnecessary and does not propose any term for construction. Pet. 7 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner does not propose any specific claim construction for any term of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 14. On the full record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12

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

    “points to any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in either reference” to replace Tsai’s leg locks with Rousselle’s central lock. PO Resp. 44 (citing Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103). Petitioner disagrees, arguing that the Petition cites “voluminous disclosure” from Rousselle identifying the benefits of a central lock. Reply 18 (citing Pet. 35). We agree with Petitioner. The Petition provides several rationales, supported by Dr. Stein’s testimony, for making the alternative modification. Pet. 35–37. For instance, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Rousselle discloses the benefits of a central lock over Tsai’s individual leg locking system, such as making the canopy easier and more convenient for a single user to operate. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 102–103; Ex. 1003, 3:38–47; Ex. 1005, 4:29–5:5, 8:5–33, Figs. 1, 2, 18, 19). Petitioner also argues that the proposed modification is the simple addition of one known element to another known element to obtain predictable results and uses a known technique to improve a similar device and yield predictable results. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–107; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and find the reasons to combine persuasive. In sum, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Rousselle and Tsai in accordance with the alternative modification are realistic, have rational underpinning, and are supported by expert testimony, which we find persuasive and credit. Thus, Petitioner’s evidence shows that a skilled artisan would have had reasons to combine the teachings of in doing so. slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s disclosure of pulling the poles or legs apart to unfold the frame does not disparage central activation to the extent of discouraging one of ordinary skill in the art from investigating or considering Rousselle’s central lock in connection with Tsai’s shelter frame. See DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327 (holding a reference does not teach away “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the manually pulling the four poles 1 outwardly.” Ex. 1005, 10:28–29 (emphasis added). As such, Tsai “merely expresses a general preference” for this technique (see DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327) and does not specifically require it. We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s general preference for this technique does not teach away from any other method for unfolding the frame. Furthermore, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 is “somewhat difficult to unfold in that an extra person is sometimes needed to push the center strut C upwardly to its completely extended position” (Ex. 1005, 2:19–22) does not disparage all other center lock configurations, in particular the configuration taught by Rousselle. As Petitioner points out, Rousselle discloses that its collapsible shelter/tent with the central lock arrangement can be erected by a single person. Ex. 1003, 13:59–65. So, instead of requiring “an extra person,” the shelter frame of the combination of Tsai and Rousselle could be erected by a single person. Similarly, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 reduces headroom in the tent (Ex. 1005, 2:17–19) does not disparage all other center lock configurations. We agree with Petitioner that the inner units of both Rousselle and Tsai’s Figure 1 embodiment are different than the inner units shown in Figures 16 and 17, which are large scissors-type linkages located well below the canopy’s roof supported by center strut C. See Reply 11. In contrast, Rousselle discloses shelter/tent 10 in which collapsible frame 100 supports sheet-material cover 200. Ex. 1003, 6:30–32; Fig. 1(A). Unlike the shelter frame of Tsai’s Figures 16 and 17, Rousselle’s frame does not include an upwardly extending center strut propping up the sheet-material cover. Instead, sheet-material cover 200 rests directly on frame in which canopy supporting rods 3 (i.e., the “inner units”) form a canopy support for supporting the canopy material. Ex. 1005, 4:11–25, 7:15–20. Accordingly, neither Rousselle’s or Tsai’s frames present the headroom issue that Tsai identifies with respect to the prior art shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,669,738 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,669,738

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.