• 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
• Microsoft Corporation / Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2024 · IPR2023-00529 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 were not proven unpatentable over Mauer and Waylett because the asserted combinations did not teach key claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner defines the person of ordinary skill in the art as follows: As of February 2006, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have been a person with a degree in 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims of the ’414 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 throughout this Decision. 2 Mauer et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,395,085 B1, issued July 1, 2008 (Ex. 1005, “Mauer”). 3 Waylett et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,184,603 B2, issued May 22, 2012 (Ex. 1006, “Waylett”). computer science, electrical or computer engineering, physics, or a similar discipline . . . [and] would also have at least two years of relevant experience including, for example, work related to telecommunications networks. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). The institution decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 11–12. Patent Owner applied this definition for its response. Resp. 19. Petitioner’s undisputed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the prior art and ’414 patent specification. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner does not submit constructions for any claim terms. According to Petitioner, “[t]he Board construes claims under the same standard used in civil actions in federal district court. The district court for the related litigation has not yet construed the claim terms.” Pet. 7. The parties provided briefing regarding construction of “distributed mobile architecture (DMA).” Resp. 19–34; Pet. Reply 1–3; PO Sur-reply 11–14. But we do not need to construe “distributed mobile architecture (DMA)” to resolve this inter partes review. We thus do not construe this claim term. We also do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We discuss the meaning of ’414 patent claims to the extent necessary to resolve the issues we address below. Id.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “a) Combination of Mauer and Waylett In support of both Ground 1 and Ground 2, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mauer’s and Waylett’s disclosures, “using Waylett’s Network-in-a-box 224 in each of Mauer’s WWAN 14 and WLAN 12, resulting in at least two DMA systems.” Pet. 11–13. Asserting that “Mauer teaches providing sufficient network coverage by use of different kinds of networks, network interfaces, and protocols,” Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “Waylett discloses an inexpensive way to implement the same networks used in Mauer’s WWAN 14 and WLAN 12.” Id. Citing similarities in Mauer’s and Waylett’s systems, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been able to modify Mauer’s WWAN 14 and WLAN 12 networks so that each network uses Waylett’s NIB 224.” Id. at 14. According to Petitioner, the combination would have included a number of beneficial features from Mauer. Id. at 14–15. Petitioner further advances three reasons that a person of ordinary skill would have had to combine the references’ teaching. Id. at 15–16. First, asserting that Waylett discloses cost benefits and Mauer discloses “an improved method and system for notifying mobile stations,” Petitioner contends the “references each provide reasoning” to combine their disclosures. Id. at 15. Second, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “improve Mauer’s distributed wireless network system by consolidating it into a single box, making it compact in design allowing for faster deployment.” Id. at 16. “Third, Waylett’s NIB would help mitigate the shared concern of Mauer—that is, reaching a mobile station as it roams or moves outside of the service or coverage area.” Id.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Petitioner does not establish that Mauer sends calls to voicemail based on the two determinations claim 1 recites. Resp. 55–56. In particular, as we explain above, claim 1 requires making use of the DPR after first determining the second mobile subscriber is not located within a first wireless coverage area based on HLR and VLR information and also determining that the second mobile subscriber is not located within a second wireless coverage area based on certain CLR information. The Petition, at best, attempts to establish that Mauer directs to voicemail when a “communication session cannot be established over the first or second wireless network.” Pet. 37. But a general determination that a “communication session cannot be established” does not teach or suggest claim 1’s specific requirements that first, the DPR is utilized in the specific circumstance that the second mobile subscriber is not located within the first wireless coverage area (with this determination being made based on HLR and VLR information), and second, that the DPR is also not located within the second wireless coverage area (with this determination being made based on CLR information). See PO Sur-Reply 8–9; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–113. For the reasons above, Petitioner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined art teaches or suggests the final “when” recitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,653,414 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,653,414
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00319 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 15, and 25 were not shown unpatentable because Barsoum supports their priority date, and neither Barsoum nor ATSC327 qualifies as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why claim 5 requires this type of optimization, or why this would be required in order for Barsoum to provide written description support for the claim. Claim 5 does not expressly require optimization of phase considerations and Petitioner does not argue for a claim construction that would include such a requirement.” slip op. at 17

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

    “(3) Conclusion – Written Description In view of the above, we find that either disclosure in Barsoum identified by Patent Owner satisfies the written description requirement. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 As noted previously, Petitioner argues that dependent claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327. Pet. 67–79. Having determined the Barsoum provides written description support for claims 5, 15, and 25, Barsoum cannot be prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as asserted by Petitioner. Pet. 2; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (requiring that “the claimed invention was patented . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Furthermore, having determined that the ’700 patent is entitled to an effective filing date of Barsoum ’777, which is June 5, 2008, the asserted March 2019 date of ATSC327 does not qualify it as prior art to the ’700 patent. Thus, the Petition does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327.” slip op. at 22

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “1 Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23, though challenged by Petitioner, were disclaimed by Patent Owner after trial was instituted. Ex. 2024. 2 The Petitioner Sur-reply was authorized in view of our authorization for Patent Owner to file declarant testimony with the Patent Owner Sur-reply.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’700 patent and prior art of record. We also find that Dr. Caire’s statement of a “Ph.D.,” “and possibly some years of work after Ph.D.” is consistent with Petitioner’s statement that the level of skill includes “[s]uperior education” to “compensate for a deficiency in work experience.” The complexity of the evidence of record emphasizes the importance of “at least two years of experience . . . including the use of constellations in transmitting signals between devices” or “[s]uperior education” in the same area. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill as discussed above.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,693,700 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,693,700
• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable: Doo did not disclose the claimed volume, the Doo-Amira combination lacked a persuasive rationale, and the other references were not shown publicly accessible.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties propose constructions for the claim terms “three- dimensional (3D) data,” “inner layer(s) of the patient,” “confined within a virtual 3D shape,” and “being having.” Pet. 11–14; PO Resp. 11–18. We do not need to construe any of these claim terms in order to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “First, neither the Petition nor Dr. Kazanzides explains how Doo’s curved plane teaches the claimed “volume.” See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 74–75 (essentially repeating the Petition). The Petition merely asserts that Doo’s image in Figure 7 “is confined within the volume of the virtual 3D shape illustrated in Figure 9,” without explaining how the shape of Figure 9 has a “volume.” Pet. 37. The Reply does no better, asserting that “Doo’s shape 532 in Figure 9 and shape 432 in Figure 7 are virtual 3D shapes.” Reply 18. This statement is conclusory and does not explain how Doo’s “false 3D” shapes have volume. Petitioner further attempts to establish that Doo’s disclosure of Figure 9’s shape 532 as “mimic[ing] the surface curvature of the patient’s body” is evidence that Doo discloses a 3D shape. Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 76). This argument, however, is unpersuasive because it takes Doo’s statement out of context. Doo explains that Figure 9’s warped “two-dimensional image 532 . . . mimic[s] the surface curvature of the patient’s body,” not that it has volume. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 76 (emphasis added). In other words, even though Doo’s shape 532 of Figure 9, when projected on a patient’s body (as in Figure 7) may appear to a surgeon like a 9 Our Institution Decision did not rely on Petitioner’s theory based on Doo Figures 7–9. We discuss our Institution Decision’s reasoning below under Petitioner’s second theory based on Doo Figures 6 and 11. half-cylinder shape having a volume, Doo’s technique avoids rendering a 3D shape like a half-cylinder (hence calling these “false 3D shapes”) because it instead simulates the body’s curvature with a mere curved two-dimensional plane. Second, we find that Doo’s curved plane does not, in fact, have a volume.10 Instead, Doo’s curved plane is a 2D plane merely “wrapped around an axis.” See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76. As Patent Owner persuasively argued at the hearing, Doo’s curved plane is not “half of a cylinder. It’s just a wrapped piece of paper.” Tr. 33:14–15. Just as curving a piece of paper would not give the curved paper a half cylinder’s volume, neither does curving Doo’s flat 2D plane create a half cylinder with volume. Viewed another way, curving a 2D plane does not impart volume to the plane any more than curving a 1D line into a parabola would impart area to the 1D line.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner’s argument fails this standard. Petitioner asserts a generic rationale that one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Amira to Doo “to take advantage of the visualization technology disclosed in Amira (or any similar visualization software).” Pet. 41. But Petitioner’s assertion contains no explanation why one of ordinary skill would have taken advantage of Amira’s technology in the context of Doo. Petitioner’s rationale is so vague and broad that it could be applied to combine any two references because it merely asserts that one reference would “take advantage of the . . . technology disclosed in” another. See, e.g., In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “a finding that a combination of prior art would have been . . . ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious’”). This approach wholly misses KSR’s “articulated reasoning” standard. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Reply’s assertion that reducing a surgeon’s cognitive load in Doo “suggests an improvement on conventional medical imaging displays, such as disclosed in Amira,” fares no better. Reply 20. This assertion again fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Amira with Doo. For instance, Petitioner provides no explanation as to how Amira’s display would further reduce cognitive load. See Reply 19–20 (only vaguely referring to Amira’s “[t]racking capabilities [that] allow for . . . interaction with the visualization” (Ex. 1005, 14, 26)). Not only that, but Doo itself presents a solution for the cognitive load problem. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 14 (“The present invention is particularly adapted to manage the multitude of medical images needed to be viewed by a surgeon during an operation so that a surgeon is not required to look away from the patient, so that the surgeon does not have to sustain heavy cognitive loading.”). Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to yet another reference (like Amira) for an additional solution, or even what that solution would be.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,004,271
• 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
• 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
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00101 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 11, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish required LED voltage matching or a clear, workable combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. We agree that Petitioner’s proposal is overbroad in that it encompasses artisans without LED circuit design experience (“and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design . . .” (emphasis added)). Patent Owner’s definition, in contrast, requires “two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill, but we note that the outcome here would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill.” slip op. at 7

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

    “preliminarily agreed with Patent Owner that “substrate” may mean “a surface where ‘LEDs, capacitors and/or resistors are formed or mounted.’” Pet. 7; Dec. 19 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 22). We instructed the parties to address the meaning of “substrate” more fully at trial. Dec. 19–20 n.13. Post-institution, the parties propose the following competing constructions for the term “substrate”:” slip op. at 8

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

    “(2) Our analysis We agree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s plain reading of limitation 1(c) is correct, and under this reading, the combination of Shackle and Birrell fails to disclose or suggest limitation 1(c). Limitation 1(c) states in part: “at least one LED circuit having any number of LEDs . . . needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of a first input voltage to the LED driver.” Ex. 1001, 27:22–25 (emphasis added). We have omitted the language “connected in series or series parallel” to highlight the grammatical relationship between the noun phrase “any number of LEDs” and the verb phrase “needed to approximately match.” The plain reading of this limitation is that the at least one LED circuit has any number of LEDs needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input. Petitioner’s reading, that “the at least one LED circuit,” rather than “any number of LEDs,” must approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input, is strained and not grammatically plausible. See Reply 1–3. Petitioner does not assert there is an express disclaimer or disavowal in the specification that supports its position; Petitioner instead relies on examples disclosed in the specification to support its faulty interpretation of limitation 1(c). See Reply 2–3. These arguments are unpersuasive. It is axiomatic that we must not “limit[] the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Not only that, but Petitioner’s citations to the specification better support Patent Owner’s position. In Petitioner’s view, the specification requires other non- LED components to be combined with one or more LEDs to “appropriately match the voltage.” Reply 2. The main example Petitioner relies on describes 38 LEDs having a total voltage drop of 114 V in a circuit with a bridge rectifier having a 6 V voltage drop. Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:64–17:7). Yet the 114 V voltage drop of the LEDs alone “approximately matches” the input voltage of 120 V, without the contribution of the bridge rectifier (6 V). Id. Indeed, 114 V out of 120 V is a 95% match. Thus, this example supports Patent Owner’s view that it is the voltage drop of the LEDs themselves, not the LED circuit as a whole, that must approximately match the LED driver input. See Sur-reply 6–7.” slip op. at 16

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

    “combination. The first is that the proposed combination is not at all clear. Although Petitioner need not propose a bodily incorporation of different embodiments, Petitioner must provide a “reasoned analysis” explaining what the combination is. See DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”) (citation omitted). But the Petition never explains how or where Piepgras’s glass substrate would be combined with Piepgras’s alleged flexible substrate, the rope light of Figure 31. At most, Petitioner suggests incorporating the illumination device 500 of Figure 42 in the rope light of Figure 31. Pet. 48 (“Piepgras provides for configurations where a reflective platform (reflective substrate) mounts lighting system 500 in a manner applicable generally to the inventions of Piepgras . . ., and thus including the rope lighting application discussed above.”). As for the glass substrate, Petitioner merely states that “a POSITA would have found it predictable to configure the Shackle-Piepgras device to implement a flexible substrate mounted to the glass substrate, wherein at least one of the plurality of LED packages is mounted to the flexible substrate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). This vague statement just parrots the claim language and does not explain anything about how the glass substrate would be included in the combination.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583
• 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
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00361 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–14 not shown unpatentable because Mann was not established as analogous art and the asserted obviousness grounds all relied on Mann.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(‘PHOSITA’) at the time of the ’924 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or equivalent with at least one year of experience in the field of human computer interaction” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’924 patent and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Federal Circuit has laid out two separate tests to determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, i.e., whether one of ordinary skill in the art would even look to the 2004). They are: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id.; see also In re Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348. Petitioner only addresses the first test (“field of endeavor”) and has thus waived any arguments related to the second test (“reasonably pertinent to the particular problem”).” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “For all of these reasons, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mann is analogous art to the ’924 patent. Nor has Petitioner established that Mann is a proper reference for use in an obviousness challenge. d) Conclusion for Claims 1–6, 11, 14 As Petitioner has not established that Mann is a proper reference for use in an obviousness challenge, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6, 11, and 14 are obvious over the combination of Mann and Numazaki.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,194,924 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,194,924
• Apple, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00093 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because Mann was not established as analogous art and thus was not a proper reference for the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Federal Circuit has laid out two separate tests to determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, i.e., whether one of ordinary skill in the art would even look to the 2004). They are: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id.; see also In re Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348. Petitioner only addresses the first test (“field of endeavor”) and has thus waived any arguments related to the second test (“reasonably pertinent to the particular problem”).” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “For all of these reasons, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mann is analogous art to the ’924 patent. Nor has Petitioner established that Mann is a proper reference for use in an obviousness challenge. d) Conclusion for Claims 1–6, 11, 14 As Petitioner has not established that Mann is a proper reference for use in an obviousness challenge, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6, 11, and 14 are obvious over the combination of Mann and Numazaki.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,194,924 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,194,924

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.