• Sma Solar Technology America, LLC v. Tigo Energy, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 28, 2024 · IPR2023-00879 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Mieth does not disclose the claimed micro-controller, and the Petition did not present the reply’s new obviousness theory.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline and at least two years of design experience with circuit design.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention, except to add that “a person may qualify as a POSITA with more education and less experience or vice versa.” PO Resp. 5. We apply Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as modified by Patent Owner, and further modified to omit “at least,” which expands the range of experience with no upper bound, thus encompassing a person of extraordinary skill in the art. We determine that the foregoing is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the” slip op. at 9

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

    “In an inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “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))). We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the controversy.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The “at once envisage” standard does not permit us to fill in a missing claim limitation for purposes of anticipation. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner invites the same error the Federal Circuit identified in Nidec, where the Board erred by holding that “anticipation can be found even when a prior art reference fails to disclose a claim element so long as a skilled artisan reading the reference would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement.” Id. (citing Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As our reviewing court explained, “Kennametal does not stand for the proposition that a reference missing a limitation can anticipate a claim if a skilled artisan viewing the reference would ‘at once envisage’ the missing limitation.” Id.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner’s obviousness challenge relies on the same argument and evidence that it presents for anticipation of claim 1. Pet. 26 (section VII.A.1.iv addressing anticipation and the micro-controller limitation of claim 1); Pet. 50, 60, 71 (cross-referencing section VII.A.1.iv for obviousness challenge to independent claims 1, 10, and 18). The Petition presents reasons to combine Mieth and Balogh. Pet. 51–55. But Petitioner’s obviousness rationale does not modify Mieth’s load 20, which remains Pet. 52 (relying on “load 20 of Mieth” as part of the combination with Balogh). The Petition presents no rationale for modifying or replacing Mieth’s load 20 and presents no argument or evidence that it would have been obvious to modify Mieth’s circuit by adding or substituting a micro-controller. In short, the Petition and Holberg Declaration assert that the micro- controller limitation is expressly disclosed in Mieth and do not present or support any obviousness rationale for that limitation. Pet. 26, 50–55; Ex. 1007 ¶ 105. Petitioner presents a new theory of unpatentability in the Reply, arguing that “the differences between Mieth’s ‘load 20’ and the claimed micro-controller are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a [POSITA].” Pet. Reply 11–19 (reformatted). More particularly, Petitioner argues that “a [POSITA] understands that a micro-controller is a typical type of load that could be substituted into and replace whatever type of load is being employed by Mieth.” Id. at 17 (citing Exs. 1012, 1014, 1022). The Petition does not present that argument.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,584,021 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,584,021
• 3M Company v. Bay Materials, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2022-01214 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the flexural-modulus limitation over Hinz and the Durasoft data sheets, with or without Sun.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties disagree about the appropriate definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan and, in particular, whether that artisan would have had experience or familiarity with processing “thermoformable polymer sheets” to form “orthodontic and dental appliances.” Resp. 8; see Pet. 10–11 n.1 (disagreeing with that proposition). We agree with Patent Owner for the following reasons.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Conflicting Opinion Testimony Petitioner’s own witness, Dr. Giacomin, opines that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with various machines and methods that would have enabled the thermoforming of multilayer dental sheets into shapes that conform with the teeth (i.e., creating a dental appliance).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s evidence that Dr. Giacomin himself lacks that qualification. Compare Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–9, 17 & n.1), with Reply (nowhere contesting that evidence). Petitioner also leaves uncontested Patent Owner’s evidence that Dr. Osswald, by contrast, possesses “the required experience” with dental appliances, including thermoforming processes for their manufacture. Compare Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 2–8; Ex. 2007), with Reply (nowhere contesting that evidence). Dr. Giacomin possesses excellent qualifications in the field of polymer rheology, but on this record, he demonstrates no, or inadequate, familiarity or experience with methods of thermoforming dental appliances from polymeric materials, which by his own admission is a minimum qualification of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–11 (statement of qualifications), App’x A (curriculum vitae). Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Osswald, by contrast, has “experience with polymer materials used in dental appliances” and “shaping operations, including thermoforming” processes for such applications. Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 5, 6. Against that backdrop, where the two witnesses’ opinions differ about the level of ordinarily skill in the art of thermoforming processes for dental appliances at the time of the invention, we credit Dr. Osswald’s opinions over those of Dr. Giacomin. We take note, moreover, that Dr. Osswald’s opinions would not change under Petitioner’s somewhat different definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2006 ¶ 14.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We construe only terms in controversy and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). No claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In the absence of explanation by Petitioner, we are left to wonder why either of those two ranges reported in Sun would have been recognized as applicable, without modification, to the three-layer dental splint of Hinz. Starting with a commercially-available, two-layer sheet of hard-soft PC-TPU or hard-soft PETG-TPU thermoplastic polymers, Hinz bonds a third layer, consisting of hard PC or hard PETG, to the soft TPU layer of the two-layer material by a process of thermoforming. No prior art reference explains how that process would have been understood to affect the overall flexural modulus of the resulting three-layer, hard-soft-hard composition. Petitioner does not supply an adequate reason for combining Sun’s preferred flexural modulus range, reported for Sun’s dental appliances at a temperature of 23˚ C, to dental splints formed by Hinz from fundamentally different polymers and a fundamentally different process. See Pet. 65–68 (entirety of four-page analysis on this ground); Resp. 32–38; Sur-reply 7–14 (well-supported explanation of those fundamental differences); Reply 8–16 (Petitioner’s unpersuasive responsive positions). The flexural modulus of Sun’s dental appliance not only is temperature dependent but also varies with the flexural strength of the polymeric material at hand. Ex. 1018 ¶ 12. Too late in the Reply, Petitioner raises fact-intensive reasons why those differences would not have mattered to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Reply 8–16. In any event, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner glosses over “[f]undamental differences” between the polymers and processes of Sun and Hinz, differences that “are central to [the] motivation to combine inquiry” and undercut Petitioner’s view that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood either of Sun’s flexural modulus ranges to apply, without modification, to Hinz’s polymers and process. Resp. 33 (quoting Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)) (first alteration in original); see Sur-reply 8–16 (Patent Owner’s persuasive arguments and evidence on point). The ground based on Sun is deficient for the above reasons.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,946,630 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,946,630
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2023 · IPR2022-00576 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13, 14, and 23–29 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Roberts and Taraschuk, with or without Wright, because the asserted combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed delta features.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not discern a substantial difference between the parties’ definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, we determine that the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the disclosure of the ’872 patent and asserted prior art of record. The findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We need not construe any claim term in our Decision in order to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 9

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

    “for a LUT having the recited deltas except for Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis. Although Wright generally teaches compensating for mismatches, Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis fills in limitations 13.8 and 13.9––Petitioner does not set forth a sufficiently supported reason for using the specific values recited in limitations 13.8 and 13.9. At best, Petitioner presents an “obvious to try rationale”: In addition to the reasons mentioned above, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try a mapping scheme in which entries in the look-up table as taught by Taraschuk are selected such that successively decreasing inputs correspond to digital output entries with either decreasing, increasing, or similar deltas between their values. . . . Doing so would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In that regard, the deltas between values of the corresponding digital outputs can either increase, decrease, or stay the same. Accordingly, there are only three possible relationships between deltas of successive digital outputs. With so few possibilities, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try each of them. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 265). The analysis for 13.8 is incorporated by reference in 13.9. See Pet. 60. Although there are three possible relationships between two, consecutive deltas, there are many possible sequences of deltas––Petitioner does not sufficiently show a finite number of solutions in its challenge.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the portions of Taraschuk in column 7, lines 61–67 and column 8, lines 13–15 cited by Petitioner in its challenge to claim 13 teach “an end-to-end approach” “because that calculation involves predistortion of the input M-bit word by subtracting a digitized analog sample of the ultimate output,” and as such, teach “[a]n approach that necessarily does one combined correction for all of the nonlinearities that occur in-between those ends—whether bit mismatches in the digital logic or non-linearities in the Mach-Zehnder modulator.” PO Sur-reply 18 (citing PO Resp. 30–36; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 48, 49, 85–87, 89, 103; Ex. 1006, 7:34–39, 7:61–67). We further agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that [Patent Owner] and Prof. Dallesasse are not suggesting that Dr. Blumenthal should model the logic-level mismatches. But rather pointing out that calculating an idealized sinusoidal response in isolation is not obvious (or flowing naturally) from a reference that can only deal with compensating the combined response of the modulator and digital logic mismatches together—via real-time pre-distortion fed back from the ultimate output and subtracted from the input. Dallesasse testifies that Dr. Blumenthal starts with the premise that all that is required is deriving a complementary function to the sinusoidal response. . . . But this ignores that the disclosure of Taraschuk describes compensating “the sinusoidal response of the modulator” and “logic level mismatches through the D/A converter” together. . . . Dr. Blumenthal’s complementary sinusoidal correction curve won’t do that. The combined non-linearity from the multiple sources likely won’t simply be evenly sinusoidal. Taraschuk does not disclose, or in my opinion render obvious, any pre-calculation solution. (Taraschuk mentions a real-time analog feedback loop to pre-distort, which would not involve pre-calculation.) And it certainly does not suggest one that could deal with the combined and likely complex non-linearities described.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 11,133,872 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,133,872
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00575 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 15–22, and 30 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Roberts and Taraschuk because the combination did not teach or suggest the claimed mapping.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Inst. Dec. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:2, 8:8, 6:61–65; Ex. 1003 ¶ 147; Prelim. Resp. 46). Based on our review of the complete record developed during trial, we are persuaded to modify our preliminary determinations. For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion because the ’872 patent specification distinguishes analog pre-distortion (see Ex. 1001, 1:55–2:34) and the prosecution history specifically distinguishes analog pre-distortion from the claimed approach (see Ex. 1002, 172). We find persuasive Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony that “a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the [’872] patent would understand that th[e] [claimed] approach differs from pre-distortion based on real-time measured analog modulator output.” Ex. 2018 ¶ 33 (citing-in-part Ex. 1001, 2:3–7 (’872 patent disclosing common, prior art solutions such as “an analog predistortion circuit to feed the modulator”)); see also Ex. 1001, (the ’872 patent describing the need for a “digital to analog converter” that would “improve[] linearity of response without sacrificing efficiency or dynamic range” as in the common, prior art solutions). Dr. Dallesasse explains how “the prosecution history of the ’872 patent [illustrates] that when [Patent Owner] changed ‘correct for non-linearities’ to the more specific language ‘determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,’” “the Examiner then allowed the claims over a rejection based on Roberts, which “suggests that there are ways to ‘correct for non-linearities’ that do not meet the amended Ex. 2009, 2; Ex. 2003). During prosecution, Patent Owner argued: Roberts does not disclose a “digital-to-digital mapping,” where, “for a given plurality of N digital input data bits, the mapping to the corresponding M digital output data bits is determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,” as recited in amended claim 1. Instead, the linear compensation in Roberts is performed pursuant to a compensation function c(t) when the Vx(n) multi-bit sample streams are generated. Importantly, this linear compensation in Roberts occurs before the mapping of Vx(n) to Sx(n). As a result, the mapping between Vx(n) to Sx(n) in Roberts, such as the mapping shown in Table 1 of Roberts, is not a part of the linear compensation operation performed in Roberts. Ex. 1002, 172 (emphasis added). We interpret the quoted passage to exclude analog pre-distortion because we interpret the argument distinguishing Robert’s compensation as happening “before the mapping” to refer to pre-distortion techniques––in particular, those accomplished by analog compensation function, c(t). Id. Both the ’872 patent and Patent Owner’s arguments during prosecution support Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony and Patent Owner’s position that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion.” slip op. at 21

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

    “mapping is based on an analog feedback loop, by . . . quoting from the reference and leaving out the very next sentence” has merit. Sur-Reply 8 (citing Pet. Reply 23). Petitioner does not sufficiently address the cited teachings and in particular, Taraschuk’s teachings of calculating a difference between a “sampled analog output signal (S) and corresponding M-bit word” to a calculate a mapping “required to obtain the desired output analog signal level.” Ex. 1006, 7:34–39. We are persuaded Petitioner does not sufficiently rebut Patent Owner’s contention that Roberts’ and Taraschuk’s teachings of linear compensation are implemented by analog pre-distortion. Petitioner cannot ignore these teachings of Taraschuk and consider only the portions that support its challenge. See Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 43–45; Ex.1006, 7:56–60) (“Patent Owner’s emphasis on Taraschuk’s digital feedback loop is also misplaced because the Petition simply relied on Taraschuk’s linearizer 44 as a discrete, known device for performing non-linear compensation of a Mach-Zehnder modulator.” (emphasis added)). Petitioner cannot set forth the teachings of Taraschuk in such a piecemeal sufficiently explain why the converter of Taraschuk relies on analog pre-distortion, or explain why analog pre-distortion is encompassed by the invention recited in independent claim 1, Petitioner does not sufficiently carry its burden.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Second, Petitioner concludes that “a POSITA would have found it obvious to map input bits to output bits within the look-up table such that the output bits correspond to voltage values to be transmitted to electrodes of an optical modulator,” but offers no support other than Robert’s teaching that the DSP’s output is a multi-bit parallel binary signal. See id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:40–42). That is, the sole basis for Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to perform the claimed method is that the output is the same. Id. This is impermissible hindsight. Third, Petitioner essentially argues that a person would have found it obvious to perform the mapping because Taraschuk teaches a look-up table and non-linear compensation. Id. at 51–52. Yet the claim recites how the mapping is performed, which is left unaddressed by Petitioner. Id. That is, Petitioner has not shown where Taraschuck teaches mapping a given number look-up table, so that the output bits compensate for the non-linear effects of the optical modulator. Id. at 52. Rather, Petitioner provides a piecemeal analysis that uses the ’872 patent’s specification as a blueprint to pull together a look-up table, non-linear compensation, and a modulator to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. Thus, all three rationales for limitation 1.9 are deficient. See PO Resp. 27.” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “We do not discern a substantial difference between the parties’ definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, we determine that the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the disclosure of the ’872 patent and asserted prior art of record. The findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 11,133,872 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,133,872
• Hope Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00125 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the revised noncontingent motion to amend, canceled claims 18 and 20, and entered substitute claims 28 and 29, which were not proven obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Rogers, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have [had] a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in any of the pharmaceutical sciences with at least 5 years of experience in solid state chemistry; a master’s degree in any of the pharmaceutical sciences with at least 3 years of experience in solid state chemistry; or a Ph.D. in any of the pharmaceutical sciences with 1 year of experience in solid state chemistry. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 24–28). Petitioner further states that such “[a] person could also have qualified as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] with some combination of (1) more formal education and less technical or professional experience or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally MTA, RMTA. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’363 patent and the prior art of record. We note, however, that neither party contends that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In our Preliminary Guidance, we construed “for a pharmaceutical composition” to mean “in combination with pharmaceutically acceptable excipients,” based on the ’363 patent’s definition providing that “[t]he terms ‘formulation’ or ‘pharmaceutical composition’ as used herein refers to the drug in combination with pharmaceutically acceptable excipients.” Prelim. Guid. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:26–28; Ex. 2010, 17:11–12; Ex. 2011, 26:26– 27). We also encouraged the parties to address whether “for a pharmaceutical composition,” which appears in the preamble of substitute claims 28 and 29, is limiting, as opposed to a statement of intended use or purpose. Id. at 6. Following our Preliminary Guidance, the parties submitted further arguments concerning the term “for a pharmaceutical composition.” Patent Owner argues the term requires that the claimed process provide STS that is sufficiently pure for use in a pediatric patient (see RMTA 8–11) and that the word “drug” in the ’363 patent’s definition of “pharmaceutical composition” requires that the anhydrous STS is of sufficient purity for pharmaceutical use. Reply RMTA 3. Petitioner argues that the construction set forth in our Preliminary Guidance was correct. See Sur-reply RMTA 2–3. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we do not further construe the term “for a pharmaceutical composition” in this Decision because, as discussed in our analysis of obviousness below, it is not necessary to construe the term in order to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 28 and 29 are unpatentable. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we 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 13

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

    “1. Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims A motion to amend must “propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims.”). Patent Owner proposes the same number of substitute claims as the original challenged claims that are cancelled, i.e., a one-to-one substitution for a total of two substitute claims. MTA 2; RMTA. “There is a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of substitute claims per challenged claim is one (1) substitute claim.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3). Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims. 2. Support in the Original Disclosure Patent Owner has identified written description support in the originally filed disclosure of the ’363 patent for the new limitations added for the proposed substitute claims. See RMTA 5–8. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s assertions of support in the original disclosure for the proposed revised substitute claims and determine that sufficient support exists. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has met this requirement. 3. Respond to a Ground of Unpatentability “A motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(i). Patent Owner asserts that the proposed revised substitute claims are patentable over the combination of references that forms the basis of the obviousness ground on which we instituted trial. RMTA 12–13. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has met this requirement. 4. Scope of the Claims Patent Owner asserts that the proposed revised substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of original claims 18 and 20. RMTA 5. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s assertion that the purity amendments of proposed revised substitute claims 28 and 29 narrow the claims’ scope. Id. Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. RMTA. Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has met this requirement.” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “determine the evidence relied on by Petitioner does not support Petitioner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Levenson, Sherman, Edwards, and USP. Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Levenson with Sherman is based on Dr. Rogers’s testimony that “[b]oth references disclose synthesis of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 151; see Pet. 36, 38. Dr. Rogers further testified it would have been obvious to add Edwards’s dehydrating step to the preparation of STS pentahydrate “which is obtained following the teachings of Levenson and Sherman” because “Edwards itself discloses dehydrating [STS] pentahydrate.” Id. ¶ 154. The Petition included these arguments even though they were inconsistent with Petitioner’s previous statement, during the Sherman prosecution, that Levenson taught STS heptahydrate, and therefore “does not provide any teaching with respect to [STS] pentahydrate.” Ex. 2013, 97. This prior inconsistent statement undercuts Petitioner’s rationale for combining Levenson, Sherman, and Edwards in this proceeding. Moreover, Petitioner’s rationale for combining the references in this proceeding is inconsistent with its statements about Levenson during the Sherman prosecution. Recognizing this inconsistency, Petitioner now takes the position that the Petition and Dr. Rogers’s testimony were incorrect. Paper 32; see Tr. 21:14–22:7, 59:1–2 (reemphasizing that “Petitioner maintains the statements that it made in the Sherman prosecution regarding Levenson”). Petitioner attempts to rationalize the inconsistency between its statements in the Sherman prosecution (including that “Levenson does not provide any teaching with respect to [STS] pentahydrate”) and its position in this proceeding by arguing that Dr. Rogers relies on Levenson as teaching surface activation “regardless of any particular hydrates Levenson discloses.” Tr. 22:8–9. That argument is not persuasive, because Dr. Rogers’s declaration clearly states the primary reason for his opinion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Levenson with Sherman: “[b]oth references disclose synthesis of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 151. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Dr. Roger’s reliance on the surface activation teachings of Levenson is because he believes that both references pertain to STS pentahydrate; the surface activation teachings are not stated as an independent reason to combine the references. Id. Petitioner provides no further explanation of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Levenson’s teachings regarding manufacture of STS heptahydrate with Sherman’s and Edwards’s teachings regarding STS pentahydrate, or how a person of ordinary skill would have regarded the difference between STS hydrates. Dr. Rogers’s acknowledgement of stability differences among STS hydrates highlights the insufficiency of Petitioner’s showing in this regard. See Ex. 2005, 35, 39. Having changed its position at the close of trial and having effectively withdrawn Dr. Rogers’s testimony as to similarities between Levenson and” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,792,363 not shown unpatentable
  Claim constructioncites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,792,363
• Sunspec Alliance v. Tigo Energy, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01286 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held that claims 1, 5–7, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not disclose the required predetermined number of allowed skips.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree or similar degree in electrical engineering and one year of experience in the design of solar power systems, power control systems, and/or power safety systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2003 ¶ 25. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’321 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ positions as to construction of the term “skips” and applicability of the definition of “skips” set forth in the ’321 specification (Ex. 1001, 9:36–37), we construe the term “skips” to mean “the event of missing a communication or pulse.” We adopt the definition set forth in the ’321 specification because patentee acted as its own lexicographer. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). We determine that, for purposes of this Decision, no other claim term requires express construction. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Having considered the record as a whole, we find that Moine does not disclose the “predetermined number of allowed skips” limitation. We do not agree with Petitioner that Moine’s disclosure of determining whether a “skip” (i.e., the event of missing a communication or pulse, as we have construed that term supra) has occurred, meets the challenged claims’ requirement of determining communication has been interrupted “for a time period longer than the predetermined number of allowed skips.” See Pet. Reply 14–15. As explained below, we determine that the “predetermined number of allowed skips” limitation does not encompass zero skips, or a mere interruption in communication from the controller, as described in Moine.” slip op. at 15

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

    “2. Analysis Petitioner argues that to the extent the Board finds Moine’s receiver 5 is not a “watchdog unit,” Kronberg discloses a watchdog unit, as embodied in Figure 1. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:30–32, Fig. 1). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Kronberg’s watchdog to implement Moine’s receiver to achieve a predictable outcome, because watchdog timers were a well-known technique for detecting malfunctions, and the output of Kronberg’s watchdog could be provided to the switch 4 of Moine, to open and power down Moine’s circuit. Id. at 26–28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–85; Ex. 1006, 1:53–55, 3:38–42, 4:9–12; Ex. 1013, 1269). Petitioner “does not rely on Kronberg to remedy any failure of Moine to disclose the ‘skips’ limitations.” Pet. Reply 19. As discussed above, we find that Petitioner fails to adequately demonstrate that Moine discloses the “predetermined number of allowed skips” limitation of claims 1 and 12. See supra § II.D.2. Accordingly, because Petitioner does not rely on Kronberg to remedy this deficiency in Moine, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 12 would have been unpatentable over the combination of Moine and Kronberg.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,933,321 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,933,321
• Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 8, 2022 · IPR2021-00474 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 13 was not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish a reason to modify Brown; challenges to claims 1–12 and the contingent motion to amend were dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’581 patent is a person holding a bachelor’s degree in engineering (mechanical, electrical or chemical), general science, materials science or the equivalent and 3-4 years of work experience with electrochemical cell packaging systems. DI 8 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 5 (stating that “[t]he claims are patentable regardless of which definition is used.”); see generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but does not state with specificity what the ordinary and customary meaning of any term may be. Pet. 17. In our Decision on Institution, we interpreted Petitioner’s position to be that no claim term of the ’581 patent requires express construction, and Petitioner did not disagree with this understanding during trial. Patent Owner agreed that no claim term required construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor,868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 13

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

    “the output conductor of a battery cell appears “simple” and that the proposed modification to Brown may be one of a small set of possible options. But that does not remove Petitioner’s obligation to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some reason to make the modification to the prior art that has been proposed. Requiring a petitioner to articulate a reason to modify the prior art guards against hindsight evaluation of a modification which may only appear obvious after the fact. For this reason, the Supreme Court has noted that “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” and that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Here, after evaluating the entirety of the factual record adduced at trial, we cannot conclude that Petitioner has set forth a sufficiently supported reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Brown. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s articulated goal of maximizing the volume of active material in the cell is undercut by the modification it proposes. As Petitioner’s expert Mr. Juzkow admitted, relocating Brown’s output conductor to the bottom of the cell would reduce the volume available for active material by approximately one percent. While we do not disregard Mr. Juzkow’s subsequent testimony that other modifications to Brown’s cell (such as removal of the central screw cavity) could compensate for this loss in volume, the fact remains that Petitioner did not propose these additional modifications in the Petition. It is incumbent on Petitioner to set forth all modifications to the prior art it plans to rely on, and justify why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make them, so that we may fully evaluate whether it would have been obvious to do so. In any event, even if we were to accept Mr. Juzkow’s late assertion of other modifications that could be used to compensate for the loss in volume of active material, the fact remains that it is these other modifications that would be serving the motivation proposed by Petitioner of maximizing the volume of active material; relocating the output conductor would have no positive effect towards this modification. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner’s expressed motivation of maximizing active material volume has no rational relationship to the modification of Brown that is central to its Petition, of relocating the output conductor from the side of the casing to the bottom.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “propose substitute claims 26–38 in the event that we determined original claims 1–13 to be unpatentable. MTA 4. Original claims 1–12 are no longer at issue in this proceeding, having been canceled and replaced by substitute claims 14–25 via a granted Motion to Amend in IPR2020-01211. And we have found that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of 13 Although not raised in briefing by either party, we have also evaluated whether estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) would require a finding of unpatentability of claim 13 in light of our prior determination in IPR2020- 01211 that claims 1–12 are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) (“A patent applicant or owner is precluded from . . . obtaining in any patent: A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim.”). We conclude that it does not. The Board has previously held that defending the patentability of a previously-issued claim in an inter partes review does not qualify as “obtaining in a patent” that claim, and therefore patent owner estoppel does not apply in this situation. See Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00458, Paper 9, 8 (PTAB July 15, 2015). the evidence that claim 13 is unpatentable. The contingency on which Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is based, therefore, has not occurred. We dismiss the Motion to Amend as moot.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,496,581 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,496,581
• Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Green Products And Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00357 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish claim 1’s required removal of cementitious material from a distinct surface, and the precise limitations of claims 5 and 6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument, that “[p]roviding a composition does not require understanding the nuances of each chemical contained therein,” is flawed. Sur-reply 1. To determine whether a claim is unpatentable for obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, we consider “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Here, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[t]he primary difference between known methods and the claimed invention of the ’912 Patent is a novel composition that solved problems associated with the previously used prior art compositions.” Sur-reply 11. Further, the specification informs that “[o]ne of skill in the art will recognize that these compositions are not intended to be limiting, and variations in ingredients and proportions can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention.” Ex. 1001, 3:13–16. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s view that an ordinarily skilled artisan would only need to rely on pre-formulated cleaning compositions and reported safety information, without “their own chemical knowledge,” is inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’912 patent. Sur-reply 2–3. An ordinarily skilled artisan, as required by the ’912 patent, would understand the nuances of the chemicals required by the terms of the claims. Therefore, we find that Petitioner’s definition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosures of the ’912 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:13–16.” slip op. at 8

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

    “of intended purpose or use, “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted, taking care to avoid importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” MPEP § 2111.02 (9th ed. rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Particularly, the MPEP explains that: If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Based on the information presented on this record, we determine that nothing in the body of claim 1 supports a determination that the “cleaning” clause of the preamble represents an additional method step of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 3:23–24. To the contrary, the body of the claim fully and completely sets forth all of the required method steps of the invention, as well as the components of the required composition. See id. at 3:25–4:2. Specifically, independent claim 1 comprises three method-step limitations, namely, “providing a composition,” “applying the composition to a surface,” and “removing the composition . . . from the surface.” Id. Those limitations, taken together, indicate that the preamble’s mention of “cleaning” is a non-limiting intended use of the composition specified in the body of the claim.” slip op. at 12

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

    “To be clear, claim 1 requires removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2. Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the term “cementitious material” to include “an efflorescence”—indeed, as just noted, the ’912 patent expressly distinguishes those two materials. Id. at 2:59–61. Claim 1 does not broadly encompass a step of removing a released efflorescence from a cementitious material, but is limited to by its plain terms to removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2; see also id. at 2:61–62 (distinguishing “an efflorescence” from “cementitious materials”). In a nutshell, the claim language does not explicitly or implicitly support a construction that broadly encompasses a method of “applying the composition to a surface” of a cementitious material to “release” an efflorescense (id. at 3:28–29), even though one embodiment seems to allow for such use (id. at 2:38–39, 2:59–61). Taking account of the totality of the information presented, we determine that construing “surface” and “cementitious material” using the examples in the majority of the embodiments provided in the ’912 patent specification is necessary to “tether the claims to what the specification[] indicate[s] the inventor actually invented.” Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In doing so, we adopt “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention . . . [which] in the end, [is] the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Accordingly, on this record, we construe claim 1, and each other challenged claim through dependence from claim 1, to require a step of applying a composition to “a surface” structurally separate and distinct from the “cementitious material” that is released and removed “from the surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Sargent discloses “that urea hydrochloride is an inexpensive and useful agent for the removal of the build-up of water-insoluble metal salts on surfaces, and the dissolution of water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions.” Resp. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:3–6). Although the background section of the ’912 patent describes the “removal of water-insoluble cementitious and lime materials” as “a difficult process,” Petitioner directs us to no evidence sufficient to establish that calcium carbonate is “a cementitious material” within the meaning of claim 1. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14, 3:28–29; see Pet. 22; Reply 14 (totality of Petitioner’s information on point). Instead, in conclusory fashion, Petitioner simply assumes that Sargent’s disclosure of “water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions” and “calcium carbonate” constitute “cementitious material” within the scope of claim 1. Reply 14; see Pet. 22 (relying on Sargent’s disclosure of the removal of “calcium carbonate”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 103 (conclusory opinion cited at Pet. 22 and Reply 14). Further, Petitioner assumes that the “applying” and “removing” steps of claim 1 are satisfied by Sargent’s application of a composition “to a surface of a cementitious material to release a portion of the cementitious material therefrom.” Pet. 16 (Petitioner’s emphasis). Specifically, Petitioner argues that Sargent teaches the removal of released cementitious material from the surface because an ordinarily skilled artisan “would understand that a result of Sargent’s rinsing process is to remove the composition by rinsing with water, which will also release at least a portion of any cementitious material, such as calcium carbonate, dissolved from the surface.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:57–7:2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). For reasons explained above in our claim construction analysis, however, we construe claim 1 to require application of the composition to a surface distinct from the cementitious material being removed from the surface. See supra II.C.2. As Patent Owner contends, “It would be absurd to hold that cleaning a surface involves removing the surface from the surface,” because “[t]he background section of the ’912 Patent clearly contemplates that surfaces to be cleaned include surfaces of vehicles and that it is undesirable to ‘damage the target surface.’” Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:46). As explained above, we do not give limiting effect to the preamble of” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,938,912 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,938,912
• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01031 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the prior art taught or suggested the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Dr. Glew’s testimony that Hong, like Barber, does not suggest that a filter is required to protect a DC power source applied to a target from an RF power source applied to substrate. Ex. 2009 ¶ 152. We further agree that, rather than supporting Petitioner’s position, Hong supports Patent Owner’s position that at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought that RF coupling into a remote pulsed DC power source was a concern or that it would have been desirable to place a filter between the DC power source and the substrate. Id. ¶ 153.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,381,657
• Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01091 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to establish the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one to Barber’s system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11. In our Decision on Institution we invited the parties to address whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 22–23. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Subramanian, testified that the difference between a narrow band-rejection filter and a band-rejection filter depends on the relationship between the bandwidth and the center frequency. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 95:15– 21 (explaining that the bandwidth is “much, much, much smaller than the center frequency”). There is inadequate evidence that the bandwidth of Hirose’s filter is sufficiently narrow to constitute a narrow band-rejection filter. Rather, the evidence of record shows that Hirose’s filter is a band-rejection filter, not a narrow band-rejection filter.” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached

    “Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’657 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presents evidence it contends shows a date of conception of claims 1–8 and 10–21 prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. For the purposes of this decision, we need not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that all of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,381,657

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.