- Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01348 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not show a sufficient motivation to combine Parulski and Christie.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, we review the Decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“and Parulski’s teachings of zoom are combinable (id.) and Petitioner has not established that they are predictable variations of each other. Disparate embodiments in one reference can only be combined if they are a “predictable variation” of each other that does not “require a leap of inventiveness.” C.f. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see e.g. Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case IPR2017- 01704, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2018) (Paper 9) (acknowledging Boston Scientific stands for the proposition that combining two embodiments from the same reference requires an obviousness analysis); LG Display Co., LLC v. Innovative Display Techs LLC, Case IPR2014-01362, slip op. at 13 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2015) (Paper 12) (“The rationale . . . that a person of ordinary skill would ‘pick and choose’ features from various embodiments of Baur, simply because they are in the same patent, is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge”). “Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“fused image.” Reh’g Req. 13. The Petition proposed that “fused image” should be construed as “an output image including information from two images.” We determined that construing that term was unnecessary to resolve any controversy. Inst. Dec. 7. We maintain that determination. Petitioner provides a construction for “fused image” but not for “without fusion continuous Zoom video mode output images of the object or scene.” Id. at 9–10. We properly considered the entire claim limitation in assessing whether Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge. slip op. at 12
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“The burden of persuasion remains on a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner appears to now argue that, in order to understand its contentions as to the “without fusion” limitation in Parulski, we were to mine the Petition for references to “switching between Wide sensor and Tele sensor” associated with Golan. We were not required to do so. Id. (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”); c.f. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. v. Twin Rivers Eng’g, Inc., Case IPR2017-00362, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2017) (Paper 16)(“the portions of the Petition cited in the Rehearing Request relate only to overviews of the references”)” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,185,291 - Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01600 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Bungie’s rehearing request and maintained denial of institution because Francis and Gilbert did not show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–13.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A. Principles of Law When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“B. Discussion In our Decision, we concluded that the information presented did not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–13 are rendered obvious by Francis1 and Gilbert.2 Dec. 13. Specifically, we determined that the combination of Francis and Gilbert, taken together, did not disclose “identifying a pair of participants of the network that are connected wherein [1] a seeking participant contacts a fully connected portal computer, [2] which in turn sends an edge connection request to [3] a number of randomly selected neighboring participants to which the seeking participant is to connect.” Dec. 9–12.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“overlooked any points made in the Petition. In our Decision, we explicitly referred to pages 53–55 of the Petition in discussing Francis’s teaching of “rendezvous hosts,” and Petitioner’s argument that modifying Francis’s rendezvous host with the features of Gilbert’s portal computer would provide some messaging efficiencies. Dec. 11. We concluded that Petitioner “fails to explain sufficiently why it would have been obvious to combine Francis and Gilbert to have a seeking participant contact a fully connected portal computer as claimed.” Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,910,069 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2017-01274 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied C&D Zodiac’s rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the hypothetical forward wall limitation did not provide ascertainable claim scope.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–12. Specifically, we found that “[a]s a whole, the claim language does not in any comprehensible way tie the relative position of the seat support to the shape of the wall, be it “substantially not flat” or, hypothetically speaking, “substantially flat.”” Inst. Dec. 10. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of certain limitations, such as the ‘additional space’ and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–12. Specifically, we found that “[a]s a whole, the claim language does not in any comprehensible way tie the relative position of the seat support to the shape of the wall, be it “substantially not flat” or, hypothetically speaking, “substantially flat.”” Inst. Dec. 10. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of certain limitations, such as the ‘additional space’ and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructioncites MarkmanPatents in suitUS 9,365,292 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 8, 2018 · IPR2017-01273 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding claims 1–6 indefinite in scope.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we explained that we were unable to determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–9. Specifically, we found that the claim language “leaves us to compare the claimed enclosure unit with a configuration that we know nothing about, except that it has an alternative hypothetical enclosure unit with ‘a substantially flat front wall located in the substantially the same position in the cabin as the forward wall.’” Inst. Dec. 8. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“determine the metes and bounds of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation required by all the challenged claims. Inst. Dec. 7–9. Specifically, we found that the claim language “leaves us to compare the claimed enclosure unit with a configuration that we know nothing about, except that it has an alternative hypothetical enclosure unit with ‘a substantially flat front wall located in the substantially the same position in the cabin as the forward wall.’” Inst. Dec. 8. In light of this uncertainty, we found that “Petitioner has not provided sufficient information for a determination of the scope of the hypothetical enclosure unit limitation and, therefore, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether the prior art meets this limitation.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,434,476 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 21, 2018 · IPR2016-01264 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 unpatentable as obvious over Zhang, Ding, and Sun.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARD “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id. “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“PO Resp. 55. In this argument, Patent Owner is either (A) implying that Zhang teaches upper surfaces only of pure tantalum, which is erroneous (see Ex. 1004, 3:50–62)) or (B) talking past (and not rebutting) Petitioner’s asserted combination of prior art teachings, which relies on Zhang’s explicit teaching of nitrogen in the upper surface. In our Decision, we reasonably interpreted Patent Owner to be arguing the former (i.e., that Zhang exclusively teaches or requires pure tantalum in the upper surface), because the latter would be non-responsive to the obviousness challenge as raised by Petitioner.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,538,324 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 21, 2018 · IPR2016-01249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 and proposed substitute claims 11 and 12 unpatentable as obvious over Ding in view of Zhang.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. LEGAL STANDARD “A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id. “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree, as Patent Owner argues, that Zhang teaches a “desirability” of, and not a requirement for, an upper surface of pure tantalum. But, it cannot reasonably be disputed that Zhang also teaches a desirability for nitrogen in the upper surface. Ex. 1004, 3:57–62; see also id. at Abstract (“The nitrogen percentage for the second portion (32) is lower than the nitrogen atomic percentage for the first portion (22).”). It is this latter teaching, and not that of pure tantalum, on which Petitioner’s obviousness challenge was premised. See, e.g., Pet. 14–15 (arguing that Zhang’s upper surface includes nitrogen and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to modify the top tantalum film in Ding to purposely add a small content of nitrogen therein, as taught in Zhang”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Our Decision states: As discussed above, all of the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable because they introduce limitations—nitrogen throughout the first film (claim 11) and nitrogen at the upper surface of the first film (claim 12)— that are met by the very references asserted in the ground of unpatentability involved in this inter partes review. Patent Owner’s Motion to substitute claims 11 and 12 is premised, incorrectly, on Zhang requiring pure tantalum (and, thus, no nitrogen) at the upper surface of its tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film. In fact, Zhang does not require any portion of the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film to be pure tantalum. Ex. 1004, 3:53–54 (“The tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film has a range of approximately 0-30 atomic percent nitrogen.”). And, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may include nitrogen. Id. at 3:57–62 (“A lower atomic percent nitrogen at the upper surface typically gives better adhesion to copper films. At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”); Ex. 1036, 40:1– 6, 42:2–9, 42:15–21, 54:14–20 (Dr. Harris acknowledging that the upper surface of the film would contain some nitrogen). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are not patentable over the art of record in this inter partes review. Put another way, and as Petitioner argues, claims 11 and 12 (like challenged claim 5) are unpatentable as they claim subject matter that would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. Final Dec. 33–34. Thus, we considered every limitation of proposed claims 11 and 12, including the limitations they would introduce relative to claim 5, and determined that proposed claims 11 and 12 claim subject matter that would have been obvious over Ding and Zhang.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,538,324 - Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · IPR2017-00264 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied adidas’s rehearing requests and maintained its denial of institution because the petitions relied on the same or substantially the same prior art previously presented to the Office.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” “An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The request must identify, with specificity, all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Nevertheless, [a] request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an analysis or reached a conclusion with which Petitioner disagrees, and mere disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“Board’s finding that the art and arguments presented in the [Petitions of the above captioned cases] are substantially the same as those in the ‘920 IPR petition. To the contrary, the arguments are materially different with respect to the primary references and the obviousness combinations presented.” ’263 Req. 8 (emphasis added); ’264 Req. 8. Nevertheless, our invocation of § 325(d) did not require that we determine that the same or substantially the same prior art and arguments presented in the instant Petitions previously were presented to the Office, but rather that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Thus, our exercise of discretion in denying of institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is warranted by our finding that the same or substantially the same prior art had previously been presented to the Office. b. The Same or Substantially the Same Prior Art and Arguments Petitioner’s identification of “primary” and “secondary” references and its application of the teachings of these references to the challenged claims are arguments. In particular, Petitioner argues that “by beginning with Reed as the primary reference instead of Nishida, the [person of ordinary skill in the art’s (POSA’s)] motivation to combine the references is presented differently.” ’263 Req. 11 (emphasis added); ’264 Req. 10. As noted above, it was not necessary for us to determine whether those arguments also were the same or substantially the same as arguments previously presented to the Office. Nevertheless, to the extent that Petitioner contends that these arguments are not the same or substantially the same as its previous arguments because Petitioner relied on a different primary reference, the Board previously has held that the order in which art is applied in a utility application is not necessarily material. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“[we] may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless [we] determine[] that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Thus, we evaluate Petitioner’s reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of challenged claims on a claim– by-claim basis, upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented in the Petitions. A petitioner’s arguments and evidence presented in other petitions with respect to other challenged claims of other patents is largely irrelevant to the institution decision in a different petition presenting different arguments and evidence for similar limitations in different challenged claims of a different patent.” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,042,288 - Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · IPR2017-00263 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied adidas’s rehearing requests and maintained its denial of institution under § 325(d) because the petitions presented the same or substantially the same prior art and arguments previously presented.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” “An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The request must identify, with specificity, all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Nevertheless, [a] request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an analysis or reached a conclusion with which Petitioner disagrees, and mere disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“Board’s finding that the art and arguments presented in the [Petitions of the above captioned cases] are substantially the same as those in the ‘920 IPR petition. To the contrary, the arguments are materially different with respect to the primary references and the obviousness combinations presented.” ’263 Req. 8 (emphasis added); ’264 Req. 8. Nevertheless, our invocation of § 325(d) did not require that we determine that the same or substantially the same prior art and arguments presented in the instant Petitions previously were presented to the Office, but rather that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Thus, our exercise of discretion in denying of institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is warranted by our finding that the same or substantially the same prior art had previously been presented to the Office.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,042,288 - PTAB · Mar 30, 2017 · IPR2016-01331 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the institution denial because Petitioner had not shown that the prior art disclosed an interlayer insulating film as required by the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). And, because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“It was Petitioner’s affirmative duty to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Petitioner did not do this. The Petition, in relevant part, merely states: Ting[1] discloses the semiconductor device 52 in FIG. 5 comprises an interlayer insulating film (dielectric layer 25) including upper and lower regions 26 and 27 “formed to insulate the underlying layers from the subsequent conducting layer.” Ex. 1006, 7:4–12, FIG. 5. Pet. 25–26. Although the Petition explains, and offers evidence to show, the insulating aspect of Ting’s dielectric layer 25, it does not explain how or why Ting’s dielectric layer might constitute an interlayer insulating film within the meaning of the challenged claims. At best, the Petition implies that an “interlayer insulating film” is any structure that provides any insulation between conducting layers. The problem with such a construction is that it would be incomplete because it does not specify whether such a film may also be located or buried within one of the conducting layers.2 This was fatal because such is the structure of the very art that Petitioner asserted. More specifically, Ting’s dielectric layer 25 is both between conducting layers 21 and 36 and within the same” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“It was Petitioner’s affirmative duty to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Petitioner did not do this. The Petition, in relevant part, merely states: Ting[1] discloses the semiconductor device 52 in FIG. 5 comprises an interlayer insulating film (dielectric layer 25) including upper and lower regions 26 and 27 “formed to insulate the underlying layers from the subsequent conducting layer.” Ex. 1006, 7:4–12, FIG. 5. Pet. 25–26. Although the Petition explains, and offers evidence to show, the insulating aspect of Ting’s dielectric layer 25, it does not explain how or why Ting’s dielectric layer might constitute an interlayer insulating film within the meaning of the challenged claims. At best, the Petition implies that an “interlayer insulating film” is any structure that provides any insulation between conducting layers. The problem with such a construction is that it would be incomplete because it does not specify whether such a film may also be located or buried within one of the conducting layers.2 This was fatal because such is the structure of the very art that Petitioner asserted. More specifically, Ting’s dielectric layer 25 is both between conducting layers 21 and 36 and within the same” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“On rehearing, Petitioner now argues: “At least th[e] portion of [Ting’s] dielectric [layer] 25 that is not buried provides electrical insulation between layers in a vertical direction under the plain meaning of ‘interlayer insulating film.’” Reh’g Req. 13. This is a new argument. In the Decision denying institution, we noted that such an argument had not been made. We noted the following: [I]n Figure 5—the embodiment asserted by Petitioner— dielectric layer 25 “has a lower region 27 comprised of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and an upper region 26 comprised of silicon nitride (Si2N4).” Ex. 1006, 7:9–12. Petitioner does not assert that upper region 26 alone constitutes an “interlayer insulating film” within the meaning of claims 18 and 35. See Pet. 25–27. Dec. 11 n.5. We did not overlook the argument that upper region 26 alone constitutes an interlayer insulating film. Rather, the argument was not made.” slip op. at 5
Nonecites Phillips - PTAB · Mar 13, 2017 · IPR2016-01367 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing because the Petitioner did not show that the prior art disclosed an interlayer insulating film located between but not within other layers, as claims 18, 19, 30–32, 34–36, 47–49, and 51 …
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). And, because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“interlayer insulating film.” We denied the Petition because Petitioner had not shown how the asserted prior art disclosed or taught this limitation. Dec. 13.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner proposed an express construction for “an interlayer insulating film.” Specifically, Patent Owner argued that it means “an insulating film located between but not within layers.” Prelim. Resp. 9. We largely agreed with Patent Owner, but we added the word “other,” yielding a construction as follows: an insulating film located between but not within other layers. Dec. 9. We determined that our construction was supported fully by intrinsic evidence and additionally by extrinsic evidence. See id. at 7–10. Based on our construction, we determined that Petitioner had not shown how the prior art discloses or teaches “an interlayer insulating film,” as required by all the challenged claims. Id. at 12–13.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“It was Petitioner’s affirmative duty to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Petitioner did not do this. The Petition states: Wollesen discloses an interlayer insulating film (e.g., dielectric layer 9) formed on the semiconductor substrate (1).3 Ex. 1006, FIG. 1. The dielectric layer 9 is an “interlayer” insulating film, as it is an electrically insulating film positioned between the conducting layers 8 and 10 in the semiconductor device. Ex. 1005, ¶ 65.” slip op. at 4
Claim constructioncites Phillips
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.