• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2026 · IPR2024-01493 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, 14, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not establish entirely crystallized CoFeB layers.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’167 patent. Dec. on Inst. 6. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent.” Id. (citing Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25)). We also found that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’167 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 17; see generally PO Resp. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., 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) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to replace either or both of Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR and lower Hf [(coupling field)] and Hc [(coercivity)].” Pet. 24, 27; Ex. 1055,30 2270 (“[I]t is natural to replace both the free and pinned layers to CoFeB to further increase the TMR value.”); Ex. 105631 ¶¶ 67–68 (“[B]oth the ferromagnetic layers 5, 7 are made of an FeCoB”32 for “improvement of the TMR ratio.”); Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 129, 132. We credit Dr. Bokor’s cited testimony as it is consistent with the cited evidence. Moreover, as Petitioner explains, “[r]esearchers were . . . interested in optimizing MTJs to improve MRAM performance,” and “[h]igher TMRs long promised improved performance for MRAM.” Pet. 6 30 Dexin Wang et al., 70% TMR at room temperature for SDT sandwich junctions with CoFeB as free and reference layers, 40 IEEE Trans. Magn. 2269–71 (July 2004). 31 US 2004/0136232 A1, published July 15, 2004, to Hosomi. 32 We find persuasive Dr. Bokor’s testimony that “a skilled artisan [would have] understood that CoFeB and FeCoB refer to the same alloy.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 121. 36–44) (emphasis omitted). In addition, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to use Parkin’s CoFeB layer in place of Bowen’s electrodes to increase TMR” in light of Parkin’s explicit teachings. Pet. 27; Ex. 1024 ¶ 133. In particular, Parkin explicitly teaches that “very high TMR values are unexpectedly found for MTJs with highly textured (100) MgO tunnel barriers but with nominally amorphous storage layers.” Ex. 1062, 18:49–51. Notably, Parkin provides that “[t]he TMR of the device of F[igure] 3A is nearly two times higher than the highest TMR ever reported in prior art devices using conventional alumina tunnel barriers.” Id. at 18:63–65; Pet. 27. And as we discuss above, Parkin teaches that Figure 3A’s MTJ may be inverted, such that the storage layer is formed beneath the tunnel barrier. Ex. 1062, 17:7–10. In addition, we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Bowen in the manner Petitioner proposes, as forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys was known. Pet. 28. As Petitioner argues, “forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys in MTJs was known and had been successfully done,” and thus we are persuaded that “one of skill would have found it to be a straightforward, predictable, and desirable improvement to TMR, Hf, and Hc in Bowen’s” slip op. at 21

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

    “We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that Bowen teaches a “radically different manufacturing process[] from the claimed invention,” and that Bowen “went to heroic lengths to provide a crystalline (001) bottom electrode that provides a template for epitaxially growing a crystalline MgO(001) layer.” PO Resp. 2 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner describes in detail Bowen’s specific manufacturing process, including the specific structure of the MTJ manufactured, and argues the claimed invention differs. PO Resp. 30–33. These arguments are inapposite. Petitioner cites the specific teachings Petitioner relies on from Bowen, rather than adopting the entirety of Bowen’s process or MTJ. See, e.g., Pet. 21–36 (citing the portions of Bowen—that in combination with Parkin—teach claim 1). Petitioner is not “compelled to adopt every single aspect of [Bowen’s] teaching without the exercise of independent judgment.” Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Bowen and Parkin each teach away from Petitioner’s combination because Parkin used boron to avoid crystalline electrodes whereas Bowen tried to achieve perfect crystalline electrodes. PO Resp. 4. As we discuss above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR. And Patent Owner does not identify in either reference a specific teaching that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise 35 M. Jimbo et al., Thermal stability of spin valves using amorphous CoFeB, 165 J. Magnetism & Magnetic Materials 308–11 (1997) (“Jimbo”). combination. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,680,167 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,680,167
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2026 · IPR2024-01447 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–2 are unpatentable as obvious over each Bowen-based combination; claims 3–4 were not shown unpatentable, and the Nagahama-based grounds failed for all claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are 5 Nagahama, EP 1391942 A1, published February 25, 2004 (Ex. 1027, “Nagahama”). made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Consistent with the Institution Decision (Dec. 7), we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’134 patent and the asserted prior art. Patent Owner does not dispute that Dr. Bokor is qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art in accordance with the assessment adopted. See Tr. 90:9–15. Patent Owner, however, questions Dr. Bokor’s knowledge on the formation of crystalline materials and seeks to exclude his related testimony. See PO Resp. 1–2, 27; PO Mot. Excl. 12–15. We address this issue infra Section V.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner “submits the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary to find the claims unpatentable.” Pet. 24. Patent Owner does not raise any claim construction issues in its Response. See generally PO Resp. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “A reply may only respond to arguments raised” in the patent owner response. 37 C.F.R § 42.23(b). The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that responding “does not mean proceed[ing] in a new direction with a new approach,” and “[w]hile replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered,” that is, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide § II.I (last updated Dec. 12, 2025) (“CTPG”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reply arguments on Parkin should not be considered. As discussed supra Section II.D.3.i above, the Petition includes the assertion that if Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes were used to modify Bowen, the MgO polycrystalline or single-crystal layer would still have the same 001 orientation. Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 129; Ex. 1062, 9:58–10:2, 18:49–51; Ex. 1005, 4:30–32). Petitioner’s support in the Petition references disclosures relating to Parkin’s Figure 3A (Ex. 1062, 18:49–51), which discloses a MgO(100) tunnel barrier, and the Petition also notes that the structure of Figure 3A may be inverted. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1062, 17:7–10). Patent Owner’s arguments, in large part, are related to Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply relating to Parkin’s Figure 11. Parkin’s Figure 11 is an embodiment where the structure of the devices of Figure 3A is inverted. See Ex. 1062, 22:29–33. We do not find that Petitioner’s arguments that are at issue in the Reply represent a new direction in its approach—the Petition is clearly based on the assertion that if Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes are used in Bowen, the device would have a MgO(001) tunnel barrier layer. Further, the Petition refers to Parkin’s disclosure that the device in Figure 3A may be inverted, which would be encompassed by the Figure 11 embodiment. Moreover, in the Institution Decision, we invited additional briefing on whether Parkin’s storage magnetic electrode was an amorphous ferromagnetic electrode, which relates to Parkin’s Figure 11 (Dec. 28–29). We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition’s assertions do not correspond to what Petitioner argues in the Reply because they were referred to in the section pertaining to limitation 1[e]. The Petition includes a cross-reference in the limitation 1[d] discussion on the tunnel barrier layer limitation: “if Sunai’s or Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes are used as described in Claims 1[e] and 2 in this Ground, one of skill would understand that the MgO . . . would still have the same (001) orientation.” Pet. 33. Further, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply properly respond to arguments made on contested issues. Patent Owner’s contentions on the merits in its Response are largely based upon the assertion that the modified MTJ of Bowen would not have a MgO(001) layer as claimed. See PO Resp. 4–10, 18–48. Petitioner’s reply arguments on Parkin relate to whether there would be a MgO(001) layer in its structure, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments on Parkin in its Reply (Pet. Reply 2–5) and the related evidence are appropriately responsive. slip op. at 17

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

    “We find that there is sufficient evidence in support of Petitioner’s assertion of the rationale to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB and anneal them. As discussed supra Section II.D.ii.2, Parkin’s Figure 11 depicts and describes a storage electrode that may be composed of amorphous CoFeB, with the formation of a MgO(001) barrier layer atop it. See Ex. 1062, 22:29–66. Patent Owner argues that Parkin’s benefits are because its CoFeB electrode is amorphous (PO Resp. 51–52), but this is not accurate. In Parkin, the CoFeB amorphous electrode crystallized at the interface layer between the barrier and the electrode. Id. at 19:6–19. Parkin discloses that higher TMRs were attributable to the crystallization of CoFeB. Id. at 18:63–19:22. Parkin also discloses that its completed CoFeB- MgOH(001)-CoFeB device was annealed with resulting high TMRs. Id. at 17:60–18:16. These disclosures provide support that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB and anneal to crystallize them because of the known improvements of TMR. Additionally, Parkin’s disclosures support that the results of the combination would have been predictable. That is, Parkin actually discloses an amorphous CoFeB electrode, formation of a MgO(001) tunnel barrier on the amorphous electrode, and annealing the assembly, with a resulting high TMR. Accordingly, Petitioner has provided reasoning with rationale underpinning for the motivation to combine. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,405,134 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,405,134
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01266 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with additional grounds also supporting the challenged claims.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 32) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 33). We denied this motion. See Final Dec. 58–61.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “transmission paths. See Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. And we agree with both parties that the light that is transmitted directly through the plate to the sensor element does not have intervening reflections—such is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “directly to.” See PO Resp. 31–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. Nothing in claim 48’s language, however, requires that all of the reflected light be transmitted directly to the sensor element, which Patent Owner argues. Ex. 1001, 70:32–35; PO Resp. 31–32; PO Sur-reply 14–16. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the claim language “merely requires that some light reflected by the object goes ‘directly to’ at least one sensor element once it is transmitted through the viewing plane defining plate.” Pet. Reply 14. We also agree that “none of these dependent claims purport to be exclusive of one another.” Id. at 15. Rather, claims 46–48 simply require some light be transmitted (or propagated) for their particular transmission path, without reciting all light. See Ex. 1001, 70:24–35.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments based on Reime alone insufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 49 is rendered obvious by Reime alone.” slip op. at 52

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “And in view of the above, we find persuasive Dr. Bederson’s testimony that “[c]hoosing a multi-element detector or a single-element detector would have been a simple design choice using commercially available detectors.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for Reime’s receivers to be implemented using discrete single-element detectors. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”). We find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner relies on expert testimony to gap-fill missing elements regarding Reime’s failure to disclose or suggest the different claim arrangements of detector elements in a ‘detector assembly.’” PO Resp. 78 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 2056 ¶ 171). Rather, in light of Reime’s teachings, coupled with the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to employ discrete single-element detectors for Reime’s receivers. See Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding obviousness can rely on supported expert testimony to supply an element of a claim). We appropriately consider such evidence of the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had as part of our obviousness analysis. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Moreover, “AAPA can be important evidence of general background knowledge, and general knowledge can be used to supply a missing claim 1371, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Here, Petitioner relies on the cited AAPA as evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge at the time of the ’093 patent, and the AAPA is not the basis for this ground. See Pet. 4, 42–43; Pet. Remand 4–5. As Shockwave Med. explains, Federal Circuit “case law has long recognized numerous permissible uses for general background knowledge in an IPR such as, ‘for example, furnishing a motivation to combine, or supplying a missing claim limitation.” 142 F.4th at 1378–79 (quoting Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1362; Koninklijke, 948 F.3d at 1337–38)).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,569,093 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,569,093
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01030 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20, 22–31, and 33–37 are unpatentable; claims 21 and 32 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations failed to establish motivation to combine or the required airtight seal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’483 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

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

    “hermetically sealed” module does not encompass waterproof modules that are not airtight. First, as Petitioner admits, as a general matter, “[s]omething that is hermetically sealed is sealed so as to be airtight.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269); PO Sur-reply 16. Petitioner later tries to argue that the specification puts a different spin on this meaning, but still acknowledges that “[o]utside the context of the ’483 patent, a hermetic seal is sometimes equated with an airtight seal.” See Pet. Post-hearing 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269). Based on our review of the record, the “ordinary meaning” of “hermetically sealed” means “airtight,” and, as noted above, “airtight” is not the same thing as “waterproof.” Second, the claims support Patent Owner’s position by including dependent claims that separately claim a “hermetically sealed” module (claims 13 and 32) and a “waterproof” module (claims 15 and 34), strongly suggesting that the terms have a different scope to avoid rendering some claims redundant. See Ex. 1001, 11: 65–66, 12:3–4, 12:52–53, 12:55–56. Petitioner argues in its Post-hearing brief that claims requiring waterproof modules are “a narrower species” of hermetic seal, but fails to explain how hermetic, airtight, and waterproof seals would not fall within the scope of both claims using its approach. Pet. Post-hearing Reply 2. Petitioner’s earlier argument in its Reply also seems to cut against this position by asserting that the specification “treats hermitically sealing as conventional and equivalent to waterproofing,” with different dependent claims directed to two allegedly “equivalent” terms making little sense. Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added). The most natural reading of the claim language suggests that “hermetically sealed” means airtight, and does not encompass modules that are waterproof but not airtight. Third, while the specification does not define “hermetically sealed” and uses “waterproof” and “hermetically sealed” in similar contexts, it does not suggest that “hermetically sealed” does not require an airtight seal consistent with its ordinary meaning. See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18, 10:47–50). Instead, the specification states that hermetic seals prevent water from contacting electronics, which remains consistent with Patent Owner’s position because airtight hermetic seals are also waterproof. See Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18. The specification also states that “[t]he module preferably houses any of the aforementioned electrical components in a substantially water-proof and wear resistant/moisture resistant environment and is preferably hermetically sealed.” Id. at 10:47–50 (emphasis added). This passage supports Patent Owner’s position by suggesting that the preferable “hermetically sealed” module goes beyond mere water resistance. See PO Sur-reply 16–17. slip op. at 16

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

    “2. Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments and Evidence Petitioner argues that Howell-596 discloses every limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18, and points to specific portions of Howell-596 and expert testimony to support its arguments. See Pet. 10–20 (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the evidence and arguments of record and find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are disclosed by Howell-596 for the reasons set forth in the Petition, which we adopt as our own. See id.11 Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell-596 anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on these undisputed points and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated to locate Howell-596’s module housing 1700, which contains its UV detection system 1500, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never squarely addresses the fact that placing Howell-596’s UV detection system behind a user’s ear would negatively impact its performance. Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 17–22. As a result, even if we accept Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the various advantages when placing electronics behind a user’s ear, it fails to establish a motivation to combine that requires placing Howell-596’s module housing 1700, and therefore its UV detection system, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never acknowledges the readily apparent disadvantages of placing a UV detection system behind the ear, where it may not work at all. See Pet. 31–33. Nor does Petitioner argue that, in its combination, adjustments would be made to ensure accurate operation of Howell-596’s UV detection system. See id. Similarly, Petitioner notes that both Howell-596 and Howell-833 disclose UV sensors behind the ear of a user, but those teachings do not establish that placing Howell-596’s module behind the ear would ensure proper operation of its UV detection system housed within that module. See Pet. Reply 17–22. Instead, even though Howell-596 discloses a sensor behind the ear of a user, it maintains the UV detection system in a module toward the front of the temple, away from the ear. See id. at 18–19; PO Surreply 21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 205 (describing UV detection system 2102), Fig. 21 (showing UV detection system 2102 toward the front of the temple). Moreover, Petitioner’s reliance on the sensor placed behind the ear of the user in Howell-596 lacks weight because that sensor merely indicates that the device “is being worn by a user,” which serves a very different purpose than Howell-596’s UV detection system, which seeks to monitor a user’s exposure to UV radiation, a central purpose of Howell-596’s eyewear. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 205, code (57). Howell-833 also employs a UV sensor behind the ear, but Petitioner does not establish that it operates any differently than the “being worn” sensor in Howell-596, and therefore does not establish that Howell-596’s UV detection system would still work for its intended purposes in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,708,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,483
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2025 · IPR2021-01257 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 2, 6–8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 26, and 30 unpatentable as obvious over the stated Newton and Reime grounds.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On February 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating and remanding our Final Written Decision based on the determination of the construction of the impingement term recited in the ’170 patent. Appeal Dec. 9. More specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the Board’s construction was too limited. Id. at 8–9. The Federal Circuit found that As properly construed, in the context of the challenged claims, ‘impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot’ must include ‘reflected, projected, and interrupted or blocked radiation.’ In other words, when a finger or non-light-emitting stylus interrupts or blocks a beam of electromagnetic radiation, and does so over a certain spot on the surface of a device, the claim limitation is satisfied. Contrary to the Board’s construction, as articulated by Power2B on appeal, the ‘electromagnetic radiation spot on . . . [the] interactive surface element’ does not ‘require[that] radiation imping[e] on the surface element’ and, hence, does not exclude interrupting or blocking radiation. Appeal Dec. 9 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “better definition for purposes of this proceeding, except we again decline to adopt “at least” because that language is vague and open-ended. With respect to the educational qualifications, Petitioner’s proposed qualifications are that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 41) (emphasis added). The claims are directed to an interactive assembly comprising at least one input sensor to provide an output indicative of an impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot. Individuals with bachelor’s degrees in physics would be knowledgeable in researching, designing, or developing such assemblies and would be able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed qualifications are overly narrow in not including individuals with bachelor’s degrees in physics. With respect to work experience, a person having two years of experience would be able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art, consistent with Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot” includes “reflected, projected, and interrupted or blocked radiation” and “when a finger or nonlight-emitting stylus interrupts or blocks a beam of electromagnetic radiation, and does so over a certain spot on the surface of a device, the claim limitation is satisfied.” Appeal Dec. 9. Under this construction, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that Newton teaches this claim limitation. More specifically, Newton discloses that a user touch interrupts beams of electromagnetic radiation over certain spots over a surface, which provides an output. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 13, 25; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the claims do not require a detector assembly to be physically separate from the interactive surface element. The language of the claims does not require this, nor is there any disclosure in the ’170 patent specification that indicates that separation of these elements is required. Patent Owner refers to certain embodiments that have separate structures, but we decline to import this as a requirement to the claim term. We also agree with Petitioner that the ’170 patent broadly views what it means to be “at an edge,” and that can include being behind, about, or along an edge within its scope. See Ex. 1001, 55:63–56:2.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,317,170 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,317,170
• Microchip Technology Inc. v. Aptiv Technologies AGAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00230 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Chang and Chang II; the Board did not reach the Chang, Chang II, and Chutorash ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner and find that “computer network protocols” is correct in light of the ’072 patent’s disclosure and claim 1. In particular, the ’072 patent teaches that it “generally relates to [USB] connectivity between, for example, mobile consumer devices and vehicle electronic systems.” Ex. 1009, 1:21–23. And the ’072 patent’s teachings focus on common network components (e.g., hub, bridge, ports) and common networking concepts (e.g., master/slave network architecture and bridging) which are used in the USB context, rather than detailed aspects (e.g., signal timing, signal levels, power levels) of the USB protocol. See generally Ex. 1009; see also Ex. 1084, 103:21–104:2, 104:24–105:4; Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1084,7 100:17–101:12 (acknowledging that Dr. Houh testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would know basic USB concepts like bridging, master/slave architecture, etc.”), 102:3–8, 103:21– 104:2, 104:24–105:4). Likewise, claim 1 repeatedly recites “USB,” but does so to identify that all of the components of the data system (i.e., USB ports, USB hub, USB bridge, USB host, USB multiplexing switches) employ the USB protocol. Ex. 1009, 9:15–10:18. As the ’072 patent teaches, “USB 7 Houh Deposition Tr. (2024/12/18, Day 1). technology . . . [wa]s commonly available, familiar to the end user, cost effective and ubiquitous.” Id. at 1:35–37. Thus, although the ’072 patent is taught in the USB context, “computer network protocols” concepts are the focus. For these same reasons, we find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been well-versed in USB standards (including the USB 2.0 and 3.0 Specifications and the OTG Supplement) and the design/deployment of USB hosts, USB devices, and USB hubs, including suitable environments for USB systems.” Pet. 26.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Lastly, we give little weight to Mr. Welch’s testimony regarding the level of one of ordinary skill as he does not indicate what precisely constitutes the basis of his testimony on this issue. See Ex. 1013 ¶ 47.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Here, Petitioner argues that “embedded USB host” means “USB host physically embedded in a vehicle.” See Pet. 27–28. “Patent Owner does not contend that any claim construction is required.” PO Resp. 5. We agree with Patent Owner that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., 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)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). And we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 13

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

    “that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product that ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). In other words, “[a] presumption of nexus requires both that the product embodies the invention and is coextensive with it.” Id. at 1211 (citing Brown, 229 F.3d at 1130). Patent Owner fails to show either of these requirements. First, Patent Owner argues that in his Supplemental Declaration, Dr. Houh “provides on a per limitation basis how [Patent Owner]’s dual role hub meets all limitations of claim 1.” PO Resp. 73 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 136). Notably, Patent Owner cites to a single paragraph in this declaration, without providing any specific arguments in its Response that its product practices claim 1. Id. Rather, Patent Owner incorporates its arguments by reference, which is not permitted. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). Thus, we do not consider these arguments, and we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s product practices claim 1. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019,8 35–36 (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative)) (“[P]arties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions . . . without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board.”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,176,072 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,176,072
• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SAInstituted
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00114 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, and 18–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Bourque and Wampler.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims of the ’879 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “Decision we find “axially adjacent” to mean “adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis.” Petitioner does not contend or show in the Petition that Wampler teaches a magnetically driven rotor adjacent to a first magnetic device as measured along a central axis. See Pet. 24–26. In” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering; knowledge and experience in human circulatory system anatomy and physiology; and at least five years’ experience designing and developing implantable medical devices.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 1. We find, for purposes of this appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’879 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 22

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

    “Magnetic Device” and “Magnetically Driven Rotor” along a “Central Axis”. Ex. 1019, 6. We find nothing in Exhibit 1019 that defines “axially adjacent” to mean “a magnetic element sealed within a rotor,” as Petitioner alleges. In this regard, Patent Owner argues as follows: Exhibit 1019 contains no mention of “a magnetic element sealed within a rotor” or a contention that such a configuration would represent an “axially adjacent” orientation of such components. Instead, [in Exhibit 1019], Patent Owner illustrates a Petitioner product and labels components identified as the claimed magnetically driven rotor and first magnetic device that are adjacent to one another as measured along a central axis. [See Ex. 1019 at 5]. This is in accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms and does not suggest that any component “sealed within” another component would categorically be axially adjacent thereto.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,572,879
• Apple Inc. v. Immervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00472 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–7 are anticipated by Thibault, and claims 1–7 are obvious over Thibault.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s undisputed contention that a POSITA (person of ordinary skill in the art) “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in an academic area emphasizing physics, optical engineering, electrical engineering and/or a similar discipline, and at least five years of experience in developing and designing optical imaging systems and have familiarity with image processing algorithms and optical design software” and that “[s]uperior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). Patent Owner states: “Solely for purposes of this Response, Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s definition of a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 12

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

    “To the extent necessary to determine whether the disputed language of limitation 1[e] encompasses both Figure 6 and Figure 7, we agree with Petitioner that the language of limitation 1[e] encompasses both Figure 6 and Figure 7. We determine we need not expressly construe any other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 27

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “presented a more comprehensive claim construction position in its Petition, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s “claim construction” positions in this proceeding are improperly responsive or belated. Claim construction can be an evolving issue. We have reviewed Petitioner’s presentation of its arguments at the outset, in the Petition, and we have addressed the Petition’s arguments regarding whether limitation 1[e] is an intended use, above. Regarding the remaining arguments, we note that our rules provide that a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Board “will permit the petitioner, in its reply brief, to address issues discussed in the institution decision,” but a petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. A party also may submit rebuttal evidence in support of its reply.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/ TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). We have reviewed the parties’ post-institution arguments regarding limitation 1[e], and we are not persuaded that the subsequent development of both parties’ positions on the interpretation of this term throughout the course of this proceeding is contrary to our rules. “There is no rule, for example, requiring a petition to describe all possible or reasonable claim constructions and to present invalidity theories under those constructions.” Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Axonics court further opined that “we have continued to recognize that a petitioner is entitled under the APA to respond to new claim construction arguments made by a patent owner.” Id. at 1382. A recent Federal Circuit case addressing Axonics and a petitioner’s opportunity to respond to a patent owner’s newly presented claim construction argument, which was decided after oral hearing in this case, supports the Axonics approach. Apple v. Omni MedSci, No. 2023-1034, slip op. at 11–12 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024). This case summarizes some relevant pre-existing case law in reaching its conclusion that under “both Axonics and earlier precedents, the Board abused its discretion here in refusing to consider [petitioner] Apple’s reply argument.” Id. (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018); Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Thibault but, rather, only that “Thibault renders obvious claim 2.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 127–128). Petitioner argues that Thibault teaches “special optimization” of MTF to “control the image quality in production so that it remains in the specification.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 3). Petitioner further argues that “a POSITA would have understood that Thibault’s lens designs were intended to achieve ‘constant image quality across a whole field of view,’” or “that it would have been obvious to achieve such an outcome using known ‘guidelines’ within the industry.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128). Petitioner provided no development of an anticipation position with respect to claim 2. Accordingly, although Petitioner’s uncontested position on claim 2 supports a finding of obviousness based on Thibault, because it is reasonable, not persuasively controverted, and supported by testimony, it does not support a finding of anticipation.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 10,795,120 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,795,120
• Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01598 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 11–20 are unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination; the motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 29, 31, and 32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated “[w]e would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner.” Institution Dec. 16. We reasoned that our review of the ’637 patent and the cited prior art does not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’637 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and, therefore, our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 16–17.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Resp. 12–14. The fact that Kalanick may not “disclose any problem” arising from the possibility of two passengers in the same area having the same signal does not prove a problem did not exist or that a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to improve upon the solution for it. See Pet. Reply 5–6. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that there would be no reasonable expectation of success based on Kemler’s disclosure of a server farm. PO Resp. 24 (“The immense expense and complexity of operating a server ‘farm’ would be a reason to avoid Kemler’s teachings.”). Testimony from Mr. Williams establishes the advantages of such systems. Pet. Reply 7 (citing Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 124); Williams Dep. 82:1–88:25, 92:13–93:1; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 34–35.5” slip op. at 33

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

    “We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–27; Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 113–125; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 5–17. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-” slip op. at 30

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

    “The ’637 patent describes an indicator as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, on the display 130 and on a mobile communication device 140 associated with the user P to enable the user P to identify the vehicle that he/she has requested for a ride service.” Ex. 1001, 4:6–10. Consistent with this description in the specification, we construed the term “indicator” as a code (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, for display to enable a match between a user/rider and a driver. Institution Dec. 20. We did not see a basis in the claims or specification for Patent Owner’s contention that a “new unique indicator” must be “actively formulate[d] . . . for each rider-driver trip while the driver is in transit.” Id. at 20 (citing Prelim. Resp. 29). Patent Owner does not address the construction of “indicator” in its Response. For the reasons given, therefore, we maintain our construction of this term. We discuss Patent Owner’s contention that a new indicator must be “actively formulated” further in connection with our consideration of the claim term “generate,” infra.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,892,637 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,892,637
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01519 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9–12, 15, 16, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller, with Peng added for claims 21–23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision to Institute, we declined to construe this term as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C § 112(f). Dec. to Inst. 9–12. Although Petitioner disagrees and asserts that the term “device for stereophotogrammetry” should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Petitioner presents no arguments other than those in the Petition that we addressed in the Decision to Institute. Reply 7–8. Petitioner further acknowledges that “an express construction may not be necessary for the Board to evaluate patentability.” Id. at 8. For the reasons discussed in the Decision to Institute, we do not construe device for stereophotogrammetry configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Our Decision to Institute applied the plain and ordinary meaning to this term without any express construction to the remaining language of this limitation, including “configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Dec. to Inst. 9–11. In the context of the challenged claims, the parties dispute the implications of the plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the extrinsic evidence, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics are angled, but instead means that they each view a subject from different angles.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “We also agree with Petitioner that “the preamble here is not limiting, because the body of the claim provides a complete description of the device.” Reply 6–7 (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The preamble for claim 1 recites “[a] device for stereophotogrammetry,” but “[g]enerally, the preamble does not limit the claims.” Ex. 1022, 11:42; Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Regardless, as Petitioner notes, no “canon of claim construction is absolute in its application and [] some surplusage may exist in some claims.” Reply 7 (alteration in original) (quoting Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 527 F.3d 1300, 1312 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (acknowledging that proper construction of “remote interface” arguably “render[s] the term ‘public’ in [a dependent claim] surplusage”)).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Treuilett discloses the actual focal length of their lenses, but Dr. Otto states that a person of ordinary skill would understand such devices may be used with any lens suitable to the subject. Pet. 50. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Otto’s testimony provides sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the proposition that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to select the requisite lenses to achieve the results recited in claim 11. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teaching of Plassmann, Treuilitt, and Staller and that their combined teachings would have disclosed or suggested the subject matter of claim 11 to a person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 10,681,334 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,334

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.