• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00728 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 15–18, and 20–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller; claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 15–18, and 21–24 are also obvious over Hartley and Eller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks specificity. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person may qualify as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2033 ¶ 61. We find that a POSA would also have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:16–54 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had first-hand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1037 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required). Further, as Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to developing such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Id. at 74:5–75:1. Lastly, a POSA would have understood such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience or study. Ex. 2030, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 28

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

    “Patent Owner cites intrinsic evidence in support of its interpretation, which include claim 1’s recitation of an “active tensioning mechanism” comprising the filament and the Specification’s description of a filament that can be both “loosened” and “tightened.” PO Resp. 14–17 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:36–37, 9:53–56 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator buttons are released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the buttons are pressed to open the valve)); see also Ex. 2025, 1288 (defining “tension” as to “tighten to a desired or appropriate degree”). These descriptions from the patent are more consistent with the view that the filament is characteristically flexible, not rigid. 10 We reached the same conclusion, based on substantially the same records, in the Institution Decision and the Final Written Decisions in the 1157, 156, and 289 IPRs. Inst. Dec. 14–18; Ex. 1042, 14–24; Ex. 1048, 16–23; Ex. 1049, 14–17 (noting the parties’ agreement at oral hearing that there was no additional argument or evidence about whether a filament requires flexibility that was not already addressed in related matters). After we construed the “filament” term to require flexibility at institution, Petitioner provided no further argument or evidence on this issue in its authorized trial briefing or at oral hearing. See generally Pet. Reply. embodiments (where the filament forms one or more loops like depicted and described in Figures 6–7) require a flexible structure. See, e.g., Ex. 2032, 15–16 (explaining that the device would not work to constrict the tubular sidewall and lumen (analogous to the elongate member defining a lumen of the claims here) if the filament forming the loop(s) was inflexible); Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7 (filament 150, with sub-filaments 150-A and 150-B). Although flexibility of the filament in the patent’s “bight” embodiments (e.g., as shown in Figures 8 and 9) is less clear, there is a dearth of evidence from Petitioner—either intrinsic or extrinsic to the patent—showing why a POSA would have understood the bights as embracing rigid structures. See Ex. 1001, Figs. 8–9. Moreover, as admitted by Petitioner’s expert, that a filament may be made from various materials described in the patent (e.g., synthetics or metals) does not, absent more information, lead to a conclusion that a filament is “rigid.” Ex. 2030, 125:2–126:4 (testifying “the relative stiffness or rigidity is not clear from those . . . materials without knowing much more information”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We find that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Schaffer anticipates claim 1 or any of the other challenged claims, each of which requires at least one “filament.” We are unpersuaded above (supra Section III.C), a filament requires flexibility, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Schaffer describes that feature in its valves. Instead, Patent Owner persuades us that Schaffer describes “rigid U-shaped actuating members—not a ‘filament.’” PO Resp. 23–24.13 We find Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer more credible than Mr. Thornton’s on the question of whether a POSA would have regarded Schaffer’s actuating members as being substantially rigid structures. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 91–100 (testifying, inter alia, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosure about making the actuator and actuating members from machining pre-existing amounts of metals and/or plastics, and further explaining that flexible parts would deform and be difficult to machine through conventional techniques); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82. Mr. Thornton testifies that Schaffer’s disclosed manufacturing techniques for the actuator/actuating members are only examples and “a person of ordinary skill in the art could have simply purchased pre-made [and flexible] flat wire or plastic tapes or ribbons.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 79. Such testimony invokes, at best, obviousness-based reasoning. This does not establish that Schaffer alone describes a filament sufficient to anticipate the claims. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,844,921 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,921
• Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00706 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, and 7–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Goubet and anticipated by Gao; proposed substitute claims 20 and 21 are denied as indefinite and lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, but Patent Owner “reserves the right to address [the definition] should new issues materialize.” PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner did not address this issue in the Sur-reply. As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). At first glance, the language of the limitation at issue—which, again, recites “the compressed air and the operative fluid mix together in said mixing chamber to form the fluid dispersion”—would seem to require the “fluid dispersion” (under the stipulated construction) to be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” In other words, the language of the limitation alone would seem to support Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the “form the fluid dispersion” limitation. But the claim construction analysis does not end with consideration of the claim language alone. Next, we turn to the Specification. The Federal Circuit has said that the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the discussion in the Specification of precisely the same language as in the limitation at issue strongly supports that “to form a fluid dispersion” in the limitation at issue requires only initial mixing of the compressed air and operative fluid in the mixing chamber, with further “formation” of the ”fluid dispersion” occurring downstream of the mixing chamber: More importantly, the “predetermined amount” of compressed air and the “preselected amount” of the operable fluid are initially mixed together in the mixing chamber 226 to form a fluid dispersion. The diffusion chamber 112" is further structured to facilitate the formation of a plurality of substantially uniform droplets, as defined hereinabove, in the fluid dispersion prior to discharge from the diffusion chamber 112" through discharge port 132. Ex. 1001, 10:62–11:2 (emphasis added) (discussing Figure 6), quoted, in part, at Pet. Reply 6–710; see also Ex. 1001, 5:64–6:4 (same language, except without double primes, in a discussion of Figures 1 and 2). To be sure, certain passages in the Specification could be read to indicate that a “fluid dispersion” must be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:11–12 (“More in particular, the suppression chamber 232 receives the fluid dispersion from the mixing chamber 226.”); see also id. at 7:22–33, 11:39–52 (both implying that a “fluid dispersion” is formed in the mixing chamber). But the passage block quoted directly above (and the similar one bridging columns 5 and 6) more directly addresses the issue at hand—i.e., the scope of “form the fluid dispersion”—by using the same” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1. Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’”) (citation omitted). Based on the complete record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s asserted motivation boils down to the conclusory statement that given Goubet and Kaiser, ‘it was well known in the field at the time of the invention that droplets of greater uniformity result in uniform droplet evaporation.’” PO Resp. 31 (quoting Pet. 59). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s discussion of the alleged reasons to combine (Pet. 59) is insufficient to support the proposed combination here. See Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380. Specifically, we are not persuaded that Kaiser’s teachings—which relate to combustion (Ex. 1014 at 43)—would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the proposed modifications, which would allegedly “improve the smoothness (i.e., less harsh) of the aroma generated as the oil droplets evaporate in the surrounding airspace.” See Pet. 59 (emphasis added); White Pet. Decl. ¶ 251 (same); see PO Resp. 32 (“Rather, Dr. White merely describes the ability to achieve the effect as in the claimed patent, not why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would look to the field of electrospray injection and combustion in mesoscale power-generation systems, using high-voltage electric fields to generate charged fuel droplets for controlled combustion in catalytic micro-combustors when considering atomization for scents.”). For these reasons, we determine, in light of the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had reason to combine Goubet and Kaiser, as proposed. slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,583,449 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,583,449
• Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00705 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–9 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Goubet; proposed substitute claim 21 is denied as indefinite.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, but Patent Owner “reserves the right to address [the definition] should new issues materialize.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner did not address this issue in the Sur-reply. As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “The record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration, as asserted in Petitioner’s overall argument. See Pet. Reply 1–2. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited general discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1; see also Pet. Reply 2 (arguing that “Dr. Micklow’s declaration is premised on understandings of claim scope that are inconsistent with the constructions advanced by both of the parties” (emphasis added)). Instead, we read the cited portions of Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also Pet. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1046, 112:4–12, 113:13–20, 115:15–18). Next, we turn to each of the four specific claim terms that Petitioner highlights in its further arguments.” slip op. at 12

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

    “B. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 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. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose explicit constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 10–11; PO Resp. 5. Based on the complete record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. 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)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Florida Litigation a Joint Claim Construction statement that included stipulated claim constructions and disputed claim constructions for terms in the challenged patent as well as the ’449 patent and the ’918 patent. See Ex. 1018, Exhibit A (Stipulated Claim Constructions), Exhibit B (Disputed Claim Constructions). The parties stipulated to the construction of the terms “fluid dispersion” and “baffle” as recited in the challenged claim. See id., Exhibit A.10 10 When staying the Florida Litigation, the District Court cancelled the scheduled claim construction hearing. See ECF No. 67 (April 8, 2025) (granting joint motion to stay); ECF No. 68 (April 8, 2025) (cancelling the The stipulated construction of “fluid dispersion” merely restates the express definition of “fluid dispersion” from the challenged patent (although the definition is not cited or discussed in the parties’ filing). Compare Ex. 1018, Exhibit A, with Ex. 1001, 3:8–20. Similarly, the stipulated construction of “baffle” essentially parrots one sentence in the challenged patent (again, not cited or discussed in the parties’ filing). Compare Ex. 1018, Exhibit A, with Ex. 1001, 7:57–59. To the extent necessary, we determine that the complete record supports the parties’ stipulated constructions of “fluid dispersion” and “baffle,” and we apply those constructions below.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,527,094 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,527,094
• Globus Medical, Inc. v. Spinelogik, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00226 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 9 are unpatentable under §103 over Moskowitz and Steffee; the Board did not reach the Moskowitz-only ground and rejected the Hess ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in mechanical engineering or a related discipline (e.g., biomedical or metals and materials engineering), and at least five years of experience consisting of (a) designing, developing, evaluating and/or using spine devices, (b) anatomy, physiology and biology of soft and calcified tissues including bone healing and fusion, and (c) biomechanical and functional loading of orthopedic implants. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Petitioner also asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). “Patent Owner does not dispute the proffered definition for a POSA.” PO Resp. 9. Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner’s undisputed proposed level of skill is reasonable and consistent with the ’385 patent and the asserted prior art. Thus, for these reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “1. “channel” Throughout the challenged claims, “channel” appears together with “curved” in the term “curved channel.” For example, claim 1 recites “the fusion member comprising a first curved channel and a second curved channel,” “a first anchoring member configured to insert through the first curved channel,” and “second anchoring member configured to insert through the second curved channel.” Ex. 1001, 26:58–59, 26:60–61, 26:65– 66. Prior to institution, Petitioner asserted that one of ordinary skill in the art would “understand the claim term ‘channel’ to refer to a passage through which something moves or is conveyed.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). And, for purposes of our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction as being “consistent with the intrinsic record.” Institution Dec. 10. the ’385 [p]atent is readily understood by a POSA in context without needing explicit construction” and the plain and ordinary meaning should apply. PO Resp. 9–10. According to Patent Owner, the ’385 patent “consistently uses ‘channel’ to refer to a pathway within the fusion member through which an anchoring member traverses” and “explicitly states that channels may have different shapes and sizes and need not have a constant diameter, indicating the patentee did not intend to narrow the term beyond its common understanding.” Id. Petitioner replies noting that Patent Owner’s understanding “is substantively identical to Petitioner’s construction (‘a passage through which something moves or is conveyed’), specifically applied to an anchoring member.” Pet. Reply 6 (Pet. 18; PO Resp. 9–10). Thus, Petitioner concludes that “[t]he parties thus agree with the Board’s construction.” Id. Based on the full record, we agree with Petitioner that the parties’ positions on the meaning of the term “channel” are “substantively identical.” Because we see no difference between the parties’ position on the meaning of “channel,” we continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as it is consistent with the plain language of the claims and Specification. See Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:42–44, 9:53–55, 10:63–66, 11:47–63, 14:25–31, 14:65–67, 16:32–35, 22:51–57, 24:55–67) (The Specification uniformly refers to a “channel” as “a passage through which something (e.g., an anchoring member) traverses.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “between the spinous processes in order to decompress the spinal canal, and thus, “relieve pressure on the spinal cord and nerves by increasing the area of the spinal canal.” Ex. 1006, 1:32–34, 1:50–52, 2:1–6. In contrast, the ’385 patent identifies that “the goal is to achieve solid bony fusion between the involved endplates and eliminate the symptoms caused by motion and associated degenerative and other reactive changes between these unstable vertebral segments.” Ex. 1001, 1:53–57. Thus, Hess’s disclosed implant is designed to distract and stabilize the spinous processes, not to promote solid bony fusion between adjacent vertebral bodies. Consequently, we agree with Patent Owner that “converting Hess for intervertebral fusion would require eliminating its core dynamic stabilization functionality—directly contradicting Hess’s stated design objectives.” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:5–26, 7:43–45). We also are not persuaded that Petitioner adequately explains why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hess’s implant in the manner proposed. Petitioner contends that only “minimal modifications” to Hess’s shell dimension and shape would be required for intervertebral use. Pet. 61–67; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122–128. However, simply modifying the shape and size of Hess’s shell does not, without more, support a motivation to redesign Hess’s device from a posterior interspinous implant engaging spinous processes to an interbody implant positioned between vertebral bodies and anchored into vertebral bodies. Here, Hess discloses that modifying its dimensions serves to “preserv[e] mobility and alignment.” Ex. 1006, 7:5–7. Conversely, the ’385 patent’s fusion implant serves to limit mobility between vertebrae by achieving “solid bony fusion between the fusion member and the adjacent vertebral bodies.” Ex. 1001, 24:67–25:3. spinal fusion procedures” (id. at 6:49–52), we do not find that statement, without more, to disclose or suggest reconfiguring Hess’s interspinous implant as an “a fusion member configured to position between first and second vertebral bodies,” as required by limitation [1.1]. At most, Hess’s “adjunct to” statement suggests that the interspinous implant may be used in connection with, or in support of, a fusion procedure. It does not explain how or why Hess’s implant would be redesigned for placement between two adjacent vertebral bodies, nor does it teach that Hess’s locking wings would be reoriented or adapted to anchor into vertebral bodies rather than spinous processes. On this point, Mr. Culbert states that “[t]he only changes required to modify Hess for use as an intervertebral implant would be to modify the dimensions of Hess’s shell, which was ‘dimensioned and configured for placement between the spinous processes’” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 126 (citing Ex. 1006, 7:3–4)), but Mr. Culbert does not explain how Hess’s locking wings and guide tracks would be reoriented or adapted to function as anchoring members that are inserted into adjacent vertebral bodies rather as opposed to spinous processes. Instead, Mr. Culbert simply states that “Hess’s locking wings would engage and at least partially penetrate the superior and inferior adjacent vertebrae” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1002 ¶ 135) without explaining how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the modification with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “modify Hess for use as an intervertebral implant would be to modify the dimensions of Hess’s shell, which was ‘dimensioned and configured for placement between the spinous processes’” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 126 (citing Ex. 1006, 7:3–4)), but Mr. Culbert does not explain how Hess’s locking wings and guide tracks would be reoriented or adapted to function as anchoring members that are inserted into adjacent vertebral bodies rather as opposed to spinous processes. Instead, Mr. Culbert simply states that “Hess’s locking wings would engage and at least partially penetrate the superior and inferior adjacent vertebrae” (emphasis added) (Ex. 1002 ¶ 135) without explaining how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the modification with a reasonable expectation of success. Hess’s disclosure that its shell may have shape variations to match adjacent bone (Ex. 1006, 7:7–13) also does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had a reason to redesign Hess’s device for a different intervertebral environment, or why such a redesign would and “anchoring members,” i.e., locking wings. And, to the extent Hess discloses matching the shell to “the profile of the adjacent bone when deployed” (Ex. 1006, 7:11–13), Hess never suggests adapting the shell for placement between two adjacent vertebral bodies or for use as a fusion cage, it discloses that the “shell 12 is dimensioned and configured for placement between the spinous processes of symptomatic disc levels” (id. at 7:2–4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the proposed modification “minimizes the structural differences and conflicting functional objectives inherent in modifying a device intended for the posterior elements of the spine for use in the anterior load-bearing column” (emphasis omitted). PO Resp. 41. For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner’s reliance on Mr. Culbert’s testimony amounts to more than just providing a motivation to modify Hess. Here, it amounts to relying on expert testimony to supply a missing limitation. As such, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive to demonstrate that the prior art teaches the limitations of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 16 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (explaining that relying on expert testimony “is particularly problematic in cases where, like here, expert testimony is offered not simply to provide a motivation to combine prior-art teachings, but rather to supply a limitation missing from the prior art.”).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,460,385 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,460,385
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2026 · IPR2025-00156 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaffer combined with Hartley or Eller, with or without Garrison; anticipation by Schaffer and obviousness over Schaffer alone were not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties propose essentially the same formal educational background for the POSA, but we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks some specificity concerning the POSA’s work experience. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person qualifies as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience with any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2008 ¶ 76. 10 Although unspecified in this proceeding, in the related 1157 IPR, Patent Owner stated that the field of the invention is “hemostasis valves for use during intravascular procedures.” IPR2024-01157, Paper 13 at 22. engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:24–60 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. Furthermore, as pointed out by Petitioner and consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing relevant medical devices, including hemostasis valves. Pet. Reply 28; see, e.g., Ex. 1019 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing” hemostasis valves or aspiration catheters is not necessary, but “general experience with vascular devices and procedures” is required); Ex. 2006 (Thornton Tr.), 180:13–19. As Dr. Zalesky testified, the POSA’s experience related to such devices “could be as simple as bench testing and looking at clinical data.” Ex. 1019, 74:5–75:1; see also id. at 82:3–6 (testifying a POSA need not “have specific experience with different methodologies of hemostasis”). Lastly, a POSA would have had an understanding of such devices’ design requirements as determined by the needs of the physician, patient, and procedure, which understanding may be informed by work experience and/or study. Ex. 2006, 24:5–21.” slip op. at 13

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

    “1. “aspiration catheter” Claim 1’s preamble recites “[a]n aspiration catheter.” Ex. 1001, 22:10. Petitioner contends that, as a general rule, a preamble does not limit the scope of a claim, and that the term “aspiration” here merely describes a non-limiting “intended use” of an otherwise structurally-complete invention defined by the body of the claim. Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner responds that 11 In the related 1157 IPR, Patent Owner moved to exclude Mr. Thornton’s testimony, which motion we denied. IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 at 70–72. Patent Owner filed no motion to exclude here. Owner’s arguments here.” PO Resp. 30. We need not further construe “aspiration catheter” as no dispute turns on that term’s meaning or whether it is limiting. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (explaining that claims need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve matters in dispute).” slip op. at 15

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

    “That does not, however, resolve the dispute about “flexibility.” On that issue, after considering the full record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. The claims support Patent Owner’s interpretation. Patent Owner cites the claim language, including the recitation that “the first filament [is] formed into a loop around the collapsible tubular sidewall defining a valve lumen” and that “a diameter of the valve lumen decreases in response to reducing a diameter of the loop.” As Patent Owner argues, and as we recognized at the institution stage, the claimed filament “must be flexible to constrict the valve lumen.” PO Resp. 23; Inst. Dec. 15–16; Ex. 2008 ¶ 68 (testifying that a POSA would understand this property of flexibility is essential to achieving the claimed loop formation and function). The Specification supports this understanding. Consider the “loop” embodiments as illustrated in Figures 6 or 7. Ex. 1001, Figs. 6–7. If the filament forming each depicted loop was somehow rigid, applying a force that seeks to pull the respective ends of the filament in opposing directions would not decrease the size of the loop—the loop would stay the same size and the filament would not circumferentially constrict and seal the elongate member’s lumen as described in the patent. Ex. 1001, 13:18–29.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner’s argument is unavailing. A steel beam or a plastic broom handle are longer than they are wide and yet conventionally rigid. And, specific to the subject matter here, as Mr. Thornton admits, machining the valve’s actuating members from plastic or metal, which Schaffer actually describes, would produce rigid members. Ex. 2005, 168:2–6; see also Ex. 2006, 152:8–10 (testifying a flexible aluminum wire would not be made from machining aluminum). Moreover, considering Schaffer’s cited drawings— Figure 32, in particular—does not show the actuating members changing shape or dynamically conforming to the outer surface of the seal module that those members are compressing, which, had that been shown, might indicate flexibility. Maybe the absence of any dynamic conformance of the surface of the actuating members is an unintended limitation or artifact of the drawing. Or maybe not, and what is shown is a rigid structure consistent with Schaffer’s other disclosures as already explained. We decline to find anticipation where Schaffer does not, with sufficient clarity and detail, describe a valve with a “filament” as claimed.21 Ultimately, on whether Schaffer describes rigid or flexible U-shaped actuating members, Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of the reference is more plausible and we find greater evidentiary support for Patent Owner’s position on this issue. Notwithstanding Mr. Thornton’s testimony in his rebuttal declaration that a POSA reading Schaffer would have understood 21 Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Anticipation requires that a single reference describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.”) (emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted). testimony on cross-examination was equivocal—he admitted “[i]t’s not clear” whether Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members are flexible or rigid. Ex. 2006, 115:16–23 (testifying “[t]he material properties of the U-shaped actuating members are not clearly defined in the Shafer [sic] application”). Dr. Zalesky, in contrast, has consistently testified that a POSA would have understood that Schaffer describes rigid actuating members. See, e.g., Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 66–74 (citing, inter alia, Schaffer’s illustrations of the valve in operation, and the disclosed manufacturing and assembly methods as indicating that “the actuating members 55 are rigid rather than flexible”).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,697,012 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,012
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01157 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller, though Schaffer alone did not anticipate and Hartley with Eller did not show claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 9.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “background for the POSA, but we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks some specificity concerning the POSA’s work experience. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person qualifies as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2008 ¶ 68. We also find that a POSA would have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:21–57 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. And, consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing”” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Schaffer’s valve to include a single flexible string or wire that replaces the two U-shaped actuating members would have been seen by the POSA as potentially advantageous—giving further reason for the POSA to have made that change. Pet. 35–36. We credit Mr. Thornton’s testimony that a POSA would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members may into the lumen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81. On the other hand, a POSA would have recognized that a single flexible string or wire that is looped completely around the exterior of the seal module/lumen would provide more uniform constriction and compression around the outer diameter of some commonlyused tools and including tools with diverse shapes and sizes. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–88, 93–100. We observed this same reason for modifying the art at institution and, after considering the full trial record, our view has not changed. Inst. Dec. 37 (preliminarily finding that a POSA would have considered Hartley’s string or Eller’s wire “as providing expected benefits insofar as such a filament may more precisely and uniformly constrict a lumen against inserted tools of different sizes and shapes”). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Zalesky, does not disagree that a flexible string or wire would have carried this advantage. Ex. 2008 ¶ 75 (testifying a “filament changes shape dynamically, allowing for better adaptability to the contours of the valve lumen as it is constricted”);21 Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 86:19–87:4 (testifying that POSAs in 2017 would have recognized that the “cinching” effect provided by a filament would have been more effective for large-bore catheters based on “simple mechanical engineering and physics”). And, at the oral hearing, Patent Owner agreed that using Hartley’s string in Schaffer would help eliminate potential fluid gaps; but Patent Owner qualified its answer that such a benefit would allegedly only have arisen if “the highly-compliant” seal member material in Schaffer was removed,” slip op. at 53

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

    “that issue, after considering the full record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. On balance, the evidence supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. Patent Owner cites the claim language, including the recitation that “the filament circumferentially constricts the lumen to create a seal,” which Dr. Zalesky opines a POSA would have understood as implying a flexible structure. PO Resp. 25–26; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 71–76 (testifying, inter alia, that “[t]o ‘circumferentially constrict,’ the filament must be flexible and extend circumferentially about the lumen” such that “the filament will adapt to the shape of the lumen as the lumen is constricted and thus ‘circumferentially constrict’ the lumen as recited in Claim 1”).12 The Specification also describes the filament as being selectively “tightened” and “loosened” about the elongate member. Ex. 1001, 9:37–40, 9:55–59 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator is released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the actuator is pressed to open the valve)). Dr. Zalesky opines that a POSA would have understood the patent’s description of” slip op. at 18

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

    “challenge fails on this record whether the clearer prosecution drawings in Exhibit 1008 are considered in the analysis of anticipation by Schaffer, or not. Whether those prosecution drawings are considered “extrinsic evidence” to Schaffer (as argued by Patent Owner) or publicly-available “intrinsic evidence” with respect to Schaffer (as Petitioner argues) does not change our Decision on Ground 1. Opp. 10–11; Mot. Reply, 3–5. Patent Owner’s motion is, therefore, moot as to Ground 1.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 11,697,011 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,011
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Colibri Heart Valve LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · IPR2020-01649 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Bessler with Leonhardt and Klint, and Bessler with Teitelbaum and Klint; anticipation by Paniagua was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “A [person of ordinary skill in the art] as of January 4, 2002 ‘would have had a minimum of either a medical degree and experience working as an interventional cardiologist or a Bachelor’s degree in bioengineering or mechanical engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of percutaneously, transluminally implantable cardiac prosthetic devices. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.’ Resp. 2 (quoting IPR2020-01454, Paper 1, 23); Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 21, 22. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner’s proposed definition does not allow for the “differentiation among those who possess ordinary skill in the art versus those who possess extraordinary skill in the art.” Resp. 2–3 (citing” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “one of extraordinary skill in the art,” because at his deposition “he testified that in forming his opinions, he applied all of his experience up until January 4, 2002.” Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 2020, 20:5–14). According to Patent Owner the “agreed upon definition of a person of ordinary skill required “two years of experience,” and in 2002 Dr. Goldberg had “been practicing in the relevant field for approximately 17 years.” Id. We find Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive, because it misrepresents Dr. Goldberg’s testimony, as follows: Q. Did you apply all of the qualifications and experience that you set forth in your declaration up until January 4th, 2002, in reaching the opinions you set forth in your declaration, other than the Paniagua opinions? A. The phrasing of the question is slightly confusing, but I believe that what you're asking is, did I consider the perspective of somebody whose knowledge -- a person skilled in the art’s knowledge was January 4th, 2002, and before. And hopefully, I answered your question correctly, but if not, it was due to my misunderstanding.” slip op. at 8

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

    “related district court proceedings construing “‘flares at both ends in a trumpet-like configuration’ to mean ‘having, at each end, a widening that resembles the bell of a conventional musical trumpet.’” Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2025, 46; Ex. 2026; Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 66, 67). We discern no dispute over the meaning of “flares at both ends in a trumpet-like configuration” that requires an express construction. See Reply 23–30. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Thus, in light of Applicants’ repeated statements during prosecution that the prosthetic heart valve cannot be collapsed onto a pusher member that terminates proximally to the valve, Petitioners’ proposed construction must fail. Petitioners’ construction of “collapsed onto” to mean “collapsed in contact with” specifically includes “collapsed onto” a pusher member that terminates proximally to the valve as in Bessler, which the prosecution history makes clear is not the meaning of “collapsed onto.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 75–77). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that Figure 8 of the ’739 patent is “inconsistent with the [S]pecification.” Reply 19. We disagree because Figure 8 is part of the Specification. Petitioner further argues that Figure 8 mislabels the distal end as the “proximal end” of the catheter, and, therefore, the entire figure should be “disregarded” because of such “obvious errors.” Id. at 21–23. Petitioner has shown no sufficient basis to “disregard” Figure 8, much less that Figure 8 is determinative of whether “onto” means “in contact with,” as Petitioner alleges. See Sur-reply 12–15. Likewise, Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner “imposes an unsupported temporal limitation on ‘collapsed onto’” when Patent Owner addressed Klint provides no support for Petitioner’s proposed construction of “onto.” Reply 22–23. Consistent with our Decision on Institution, we determine on the full record that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that “onto” means “in contact with.” See Inst. Dec. 23–27. Accordingly, a “delivery system . . . wherein the prosthetic heart valve is collapsed onto the pusher member” does not encompass a delivery system with a prosthetic heart valve only shown to be “in contact with” a pusher member. We find no further express construction” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,125,739 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,125,739
• Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00449 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch because the combination teaches the claimed elements and increased headroom supplied a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10

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

    “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “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 11

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

    “applicant acted as a lexicographer as to the term “stretching.” We determine that the Specification supports an understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning as extending or spreading out rather than as “make taut” or in “tension.” As argued by Petitioner, “[t]here is no description requiring that a roof be made taut or placed under tension” and, “[t]o the contrary, the specification consistently uses the word ‘stretch’ to describe extending or spreading out.” Pet. Reply 11. For example, in the eleven instances the Specification uses some form of the word “stretch” (aside from in claim 1), six instances relate to “stretching” the frame (or some component of the frame), rather than the roof. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)), 3:15–19 (“When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame. When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the two 14 Under the same logic, Patent Owner’s construction of “stretching” as “make taut” should be rejected because it would render superfluous the “sustaining” requirement in that any “center pole” that makes taut a tent’s roof would also sustain it. Cf. PO Sur-reply 5. types of ribs 20 and 30.” (emphasis added)), 3:23–24 (discussing how “the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support links 40” (emphasis added)), 3:29–30 (discussing “[w]hen the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as described above” (emphasis added)), 4:12–14 (“When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent, the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” (emphasis added)). These instances do not align with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as in “tension” or “make taut.” We find particularly supportive of the above-determined construction that in one of those six instances, the Specification directly contrasts—using a disjunctive “or”—“stretchable” with “collapsible.” See Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “On the full record developed at trial, we determine that the increased total ceiling height—i.e., “headroom” as used in the Petition—provides adequate “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the unmodified version of Yang is most similar to the middle example in Petitioner’s graphic above, as it has no structure underneath the tent roof (as roof support bars 7 and groove joints 6 are essentially at the height of the canopy itself). Compare Pet. Reply 20, with Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. The modified device—Yang modified with apex portion 50 of Lynch—is most similar to the rightmost example in Petitioner’s graphic, as the height of the canopy has been increased at least somewhat as compared to the middle example. See Pet. Reply 20; see also PO Resp. 24 (acknowledging that the proposed modification would “increase the height of the roof (the ceiling height)”). The record supports that this increased total ceiling height—even if only for certain locations where a person might stand—would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang based on Lynch as proposed. This determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Klopp, who states that “[i]ncreased headroom in some places under a tent is desirable for stationary users, especially for users of above average height.” Klopp Reply Decl. ¶ 113, cited at Pet. Reply 19.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,944,040
• Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2020 · PGR2019-00015 · APJ James J Mayberry · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(f)/112(b) and for lack of written description under § 112(a); the prior-art grounds did not show them unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art reflects aspects of each party’s definition. First, we agree with Petitioner’s characterization that the breadth of experience is in the field of inflatable product pump design. The field of “pneumatic pumps” is broad and encompasses pumps with operating parameters outside the needs identified in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. See e.g., Ex. 1004, 1:24–32 (identifying the types of inflatable objects as having applications “in hospitals for patients, outdoors for recreations and indoors for comfort”); Ex. 1006, 6:54–65 (identifying a low pressure blower and a low volume supplemental pump); Ex. 1007 (involving a pump for supplying breathing air for a continuous positive airway pressure device); Ex. 1010, 1:19–22, 3:21–27 (disclosing a low output circulation pump for “mattresses, chairs, couches and other patient support devices”); Ex. 1013, 11:34–37 (“The blower provides an air flow of 50 cubic feet per minute, without back pressure, and is capable of generating a maximum pressure of about 30 inches of water.”); Ex. 1014, 15:60–16:15 (disclosing gauge air pressures in the range of 0.16 to 0.65 pounds per square inch for an air bed); Ex. 1017, 10:62–64 (“The blower preferably is a 24 v.d.c. model producing 29.29 in Hg at 70 degrees F.”). Second, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of ordinary skill in the art encompasses a person with an advanced engineering degree and broader experience, with inflatable product pumps. Accordingly, we find that a person having of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent field, and two years of experience in inflatable product pump design, or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent field and two years in teaching, research, or experience relating to pneumatic pumps; or (2) an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and four years of practical experience in inflatable product pump design. Also, our claim construction and patentability analyses presented below would reach the same findings and determinations under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Ex. 2020 ¶ 89 (“My opinions expressed in this declaration remain the same under either definition of a POSA.”).” slip op. at 15

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

    “The Federal Circuit emphasizes “that the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or absence of the word ‘means’ but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. To overcome the presumption that § 112(f) does not apply, the burden is on Petitioner to “demonstrate[] that the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. at 1349; see Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In determining whether this presumption has been rebutted, the challenger must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are to be governed by § 112[(f)].”); see also Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1299–1300 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[I]n appropriate cases, a party advocating that a claim limitation that does not recite the word ‘means’ is subject to § 112[(f)] can overcome the presumption against its application solely by reference to evidence intrinsic to the patent.”). preponderance of the evidence, that “pressure controlling assembly” is a means-plus-function term. Patent Owner, citing Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018), argues that Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that the term “pressure controlling assembly” does not invoke § 112(f) by showing that the term is a nonce word. Sur-reply 4–5. As we detail below, we do not agree. We determine that Petitioner has met its burden in demonstrating that the term “pressure controlling assembly” is a means-plus-function term, invoking the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). We determine that the intrinsic evidence on which Petitioner relies is sufficient to overcome the presumption that the lack of the word “means” indicates that the term does not invoke § 112(f). See Diebold Nixdorf, Inc., 899 F.3d at 1299–1300.9 In our analysis below, we review the intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence (and, particularly whether the extrinsic evidence would support a finding that the term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, including either a particular structure or a class of structures), and relevant case law.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the Specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for all the recited functions of the “pressure controlling assembly.” “Where there are multiple claimed functions, as we have here, the patentee must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed 18 This image differs from Figure 1 of the ’979 patent, which does not include reference numeral 4 or its associated lead line. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, with Ex. 1003, 17. of the recited functions, as it is dispositive to our finding. Claim 1 requires, in part, the pressure controlling assembly functions to “automatically activate the supplemental air pressure providing device.” Ex. 1004, 5:54–56. Patent Owner takes the position that item 121 and item 122 combine to form the pressure controlling assembly. PO Resp. 25 (“A POSA would understand the region of [Figure] 2a denoted by 121/122 as a disclosed pressure controlling assembly.”). Patent Owner then includes rod 12 as part of item 121. See PO Resp. 24 (showing rod 12 and item 121 in red); id. at 25 (indicating a “rod (also red)” associated with item 121). Patent Owner characterizes item 121 as a “flexible diaphragm” and argues that “flexible diaphragm 121 (red) of [Figure] 2a of the ’979 [p]atent acts as a pressure sensor. Its associated rod (also red) will slide up and down based on the pressure of the inflatable (blue) versus the ambient pressure (green) and force applied to it by the adjusting input (e.g., spring 11 of [Figure] 2a).” PO Resp. 25 (referencing Ex. 2020 ¶ 41). Significant to our analysis, Patent Owner argues, relying on Dr. Stevick’s verbatim testimony, that the movement of the rod is sensed by limit switch 13, which turns the supplemental air pressure providing device on and off. See PO Resp. 25 (referencing Ex. 2020 ¶ 41).” slip op. at 56

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “For similar reasons that we found that the ’979 patent did not disclose corresponding structure for the means-plus-function limitation “pressure controlling assembly,” we find that the ’847 application fails to provide written description support for the “pressure controlling assembly.” Specifically, we find that the ’847 application fails to demonstrate that the inventors were in possession of a “pressure controlling assembly” that “automatically activate[s] the supplemental air pressure providing device” as required by claim 1. We do not agree with Patent Owner that the cited sections of the ’847 application disclose to a person having ordinary skill in the art that automatically operate the supplemental air pressure providing device. The ’847 application itself is silent as to any limit switch operating the supplemental air pressure providing device. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–35 (presenting two sections of the ’847 application that allegedly support Patent Owner’s position, where the text of the application never mentions limit switches). We also do not credit Dr. Stevick’s testimony in this regard. Again, Dr. Stevick’s declaration essentially mimics the Patent Owner Response, down to the bolding of language from the ’847 application. Compare Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 53–54, with PO Resp. 34–35. Also, Dr. Stevick’s declaration states that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a “pressure controlling assembly provides limit switching to automatically turn the supplemental air pressure providing device on when the pressure of the inflatable object is at a lower limit and to turn it off when the pressure is at an upper limit to maintain an air pressure of the inflatable object.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 54. The sole basis for this statement is a reference to Exhibit 1003, Figures 1 and 2a, without any further explanation. Such a conclusory opinion that is not adequately supported is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We also find Patent Owner’s post hoc reliance on the CN ’302 application as confirmation of its position inapposite. As an initial point, there is no dispute that the CN ’302 application cannot be directly relied upon for written description support of the “pressure controlling assembly,” with respect to any disclosure in that application that does not appear in the ’847 application.19 Patent Owner’s use of the information in the application 19 See supra note 8.” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 9,989,979 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,989,979

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.