• Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Healthier Choices Management Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2022 · IPR2022-00454 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hammel; the revised contingent motion to amend with substitute claims 9–16 is denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field and two to three years of industry experience, or a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and one to two years of industry experience” and “would have been familiar with electrically powered smoking devices and the components and underlying technology used therein.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, an understanding of combustion reactions in electric smoking articles, and one to three years of practical experience” and would have been “familiar with electrical smoking devices and the components and design considerations thereof.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–31). Neither party has responded to the other’s position as to the level of ordinary skill, or identified any material difference between their proposals. Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Patent Owner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’170 patent and the prior art of record. We note, however, that neither party contends that any issue in this case turns on the differences between the parties’ definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it improperly reads extraneous limitations into the claim from the specification, “wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The ’170 patent discloses multiple embodiments of a combustible material reservoir; Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Sur-reply 7–8. Further, Patent Owner does not present a sufficient underlying factual basis to support Dr. Garris’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “combustible material reservoir” as Patent Owner proposes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–64. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the airflow limitations that Patent Owner reads into “combustible material reservoir” are necessary. In view of the foregoing, we construe the term “combustible material reservoir” to have its ordinary meaning, i.e., a reservoir for combustible material.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir.” slip op. at 24

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

    “insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that Hammel discloses each of the limitations of claims 1 and 5.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,170 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,170
• Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Healthier Choices Management Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01079 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hammel; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support for substitute claims 9–16.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “art include: “(1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction imports limitations from a single embodiment of the specification into the claims. Pet. Reply 5–6. Petitioner further argues that the ’170 patent expressly describes reservoirs with attributes different than the embodiment relied on by Patent Owner, such as “the combustible material reservoir 165 may be located on the surface of and extends into the second pipe section 140.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:57–63; also citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 3, 6:23–45, 9:15–35; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 48–52). We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it improperly reads extraneous limitations into the claim from the specification, “wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The ’170 patent discloses multiple embodiments of a combustible material reservoir; Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Sur-reply 7–8. Further, Patent Owner does not present a sufficient underlying factual basis to support Dr. Garris’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “combustible material reservoir” as Patent Owner proposes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 63–64. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the airflow limitations that Patent Owner reads into “combustible material reservoir” are necessary. In view of the foregoing, we construe the term “combustible material reservoir” to have its ordinary meaning, i.e., a reservoir for combustible material.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir.” slip op. at 24

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

    “insufficient because its text descriptions do not state that the heating element protrudes from the top of the case body, or that the porcelain tube has holes in it, do not adequately credit the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret Hammel’s figures as a whole. The dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the reference that every claim element is disclosed in that single reference. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As Petitioner asserts, and Dr. Deevi credibly testifies, a person of ordinary skill would have inferred the shape and location of the heating element in Figure 2 based on the labeled heating element in the exploded view of Figure 3. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 10. We find this assertion to be reasonable. In view of the level of ordinary skill and relative structural simplicity of the claimed subject matter, we also find that a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably understood from Hammel’s figures that its heating element has legs that fix it in place in holes within the porcelain tube. Dr. Deevi’s testimony supports these findings, because he explains that a person of ordinary skill would infer that the heating element within the porcelain tube would not be connected to the battery without holes in the porcelain tube. Ex. 1003 ¶ 244; Ex. 2003, 192–196. We find no contradiction in Dr. Deevi’s testimony, as Patent Owner asserts. Although Patent Owner asserts “Dr. Deevi conceded that Hammel does not describe any holes in the bottom half of the porcelain tube” (PO Resp. 60 (citing Ex. 2003, 193:7–11)), Dr. Deevi explained in his subsequent response that his opinion is based on the inference a person of ordinary skill would draw from Hammel’s disclosure. Ex. 2003, 193:13–16. We disagree with Patent Owner that Hammel’s disclosure provides insufficient evidence to support Dr. Deevi’s opinion, and we find Dr, Deevi’s explanation of Hammel supports a reasonable inference that it discloses a heating element fixed in the combustible material reservoir. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence shows that Hammel discloses each of the limitations of claims 1 and 5.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,170 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,170
• Hanwha Solutions Corporation / Hanwha Q Cells USA, Inc. v. Rec Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00989 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish a motivation to combine Yagiura and Shimasaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. We agree that documents from the Japanese Patent Office are self-authenticating official government documents. The technical issues regarding missing pages in the originally filed version of the document do not cause us to question authenticity. We also agree that Petitioner uses the documents to establish what the documents teach rather than establishing the truth of what the documents teach. In Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the date printed on the document to prove up the truth of when the document was published. Mot. Excl. Reply 1–2. To the extent this is the case, an exception to hearsay applies because the document is a record of a public office. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) (a record of public office is an exception to the hearsay rule if the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances “indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). Here, Patent Owner does not persuasively demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness; Patent Owner does not identify any substantively meaningful distinction in the missing pages of the originally filed document and does not identify any evidence to suggest that the missing pages were anything more than a harmless clerical error. For the reasons above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied with respect to these documents. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s proposal is too broad. PO Resp. 8. For example, a person who merely installs solar panels for three years (satisfying “professional experience in solar energy”) while having some familiarity with module manufacturing would not be of ordinary skill in the design aspects of the ’060 patent as, for example, reflected by the claims at issue and the ’060 patent’s text and figures. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 3:22–7:44. On the other hand, we also determine that Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow. A person could, for example, have ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent by virtue of non-professional experience (for example, academic experience). When assessing relevant experience, research work done for a university (beyond mere classroom study) would have been just as valuable as research work done for a corporation. Also, ordinary skill in the art could be demonstrated by work that requires understanding of the ’060 patent’s field even if not “designing, developing, and/or researching” in the field itself We, thus, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent would have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like, and at least two years of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or (b) experience in solar energy that required an understanding of the ’060 patent’s field. Alternatively, that person would have had an advanced degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like and at least one year of” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “qualifies as evidence in this matter. The Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony about the perspective of person of ordinary skill in the art (as Dr. Kimball provides here) must come from a person having at least ordinary skill in the art. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (holding that ITC Administrative Law Judge abused discretion by admitting expert testimony of witness who lacked the experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art); see Mot. Excl. 6–7 (arguing this point). Patent Owner, however, cites no authority that expert testimony on such matters come from a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Scentair Tech., LLC v. Prolitiec Inc., IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 61 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (similarly noting a party’s lack of authority on this point). Beyond needing to come from a person of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony is admissible if the expert has the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, “[t]here is … no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.” USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019). Here, Petitioner adequately establishes that Dr. Kimball qualifies as a” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Petition argues that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 13. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,060 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,060
• Hanwha Solutions Corporation / Hanwha Q Cells USA, Inc. v. Rec Solar Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00988 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Huang and Wu; claims 1, 2, and 4 are also anticipated by Zhang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. We agree that documents from the Japanese Patent Office are self-authenticating official government documents. The technical issues regarding missing pages in the originally filed version of the document do not cause us to question authenticity. We also agree that Petitioner uses the documents to establish what the documents teach rather than establishing the truth of what the documents teach. In Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the date printed on the document to prove up the truth of when the document was published. Mot. Excl. Reply 1–2. To the extent this is the case, an exception to hearsay applies because the document is a record of a public office. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) (a record of public office is an exception to the hearsay rule if the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances “indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). Here, Patent Owner does not persuasively demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness; Patent Owner does not identify any substantively meaningful distinction in the missing pages of the originally filed document and does not identify any evidence to suggest that the missing pages were anything more than a harmless technical error. For the reasons above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied with respect to these documents. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s proposal is too broad. PO Resp. 8. For example, a person who merely installs solar panels for three years (satisfying “professional experience in solar energy”) while having some familiarity with module manufacturing would not be of ordinary skill in the design aspects of the ’060 patent as, for example, reflected by the claims at issue and the ’060 patent’s text and figures. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 3:22–7:44. On the other hand, we also determine that Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow. A person could, for example, have ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent by virtue of non-professional experience (for example, academic experience). When assessing relevant experience, research work done for a university (beyond mere classroom study) would have been just as valuable as research work done for a corporation. Also, ordinary skill in the art could be demonstrated by work that requires understanding of the ’060 patent’s field even if not “designing, developing, and/or researching” in the field itself. We, thus, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent would have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like, and at least two years of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or (b) experience in solar energy that required an understanding of the ’060 patent’s field. Alternatively, that person would have had an advanced degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like and at least one year of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or 7 Our analysis is constrained to the extent neither party addresses the Best Medical factors with particularity. For example, the briefing does not address the educational level of the inventor. patent’s field.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We next assess whether or not Dr. Kimball’s testimony properly qualifies as evidence in this matter. The Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony about the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as Dr. Kimball provides here) must come from a person having at least ordinary skill in the art. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (holding that ITC Administrative Law Judge abused discretion by admitting expert testimony of witness who lacked the experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art); see Mot. Excl. 6–7 (arguing this point). Patent Owner, however, cites no authority that expert testimony on such matters come from a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Scentair Tech., LLC v. Prolitiec Inc., IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 61 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (similarly noting a party’s lack of authority on this point). Beyond needing to come from a person of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony is admissible if the expert has the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, “[t]here is … no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.” USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019). Here, Petitioner adequately establishes that Dr. Kimball qualifies as a” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues, however, that where claim 4 recites “the first and second solar cell series are coupled with the bypass diode of the first solar cell unit via a first cross-connector, and the third and fourth solar series are coupled with the bypass diode of the second solar cell unit via a second cross-connector,” the word “a” means “one.” PO Resp. 13–14. In particular, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art via one or more cross-connectors” and that “a” meaning “one” in claim 4 is necessary for claim 4 to further limit claim 1. Id. Petitioner argues that “a” means “one or more.” Pet. Reply 2–4. We agree with Petitioner. The ’040 patent explicitly defines “a” consistently with Petitioner’s position by stating that “it should be noted that the term ‘comprising’ does not exclude other elements or steps and the ‘a’ or ‘an’ does not exclude a plurality.” Ex. 1001, 7:62–63. The ’040 patent’s explicit definition is consistent with typical usage of “a” in this patent law context. See, e.g., KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that “a” in patent parlance means “one or more” for open-ended claims reciting the transitional phrase “comprising”). Patent Owner’s argument regarding claim construction is unpersuasive because Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by explicitly requiring first and second crossconnectors; claim 1 does not recite a “cross-connector.” Ex. 1001, 8:2–22. Thus, we construe “a” in this context as meaning “one or more.”” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,060 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,060
• Globalfoundries Inc. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. et al. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2022-01083 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claims on any ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “it is used consistently throughout. First, in describing related prior art, the ’903 patent states that “[t]he through plug is constituted of an insulating material covering a sidewall of a through hole and a low electrical resistance metal material . . . in a columnar shape that is positioned so as to be surrounded by the insulating material and that serves as a conductive member.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–40. In describing its own drawings, reference numeral 15 consistently is used to refer to the “through plug.” Id. at 2:37– 52. Figures 1A and 1B “are views schematically showing the structure of a semiconductor device (semiconductor chip) according to an embodiment of the present invention.” Id. at 5:46–48, Figs. 1A, 1B. In these figures, reference numeral 15 refers to “[a] through plug.” Id. at 6:16. This through plug “is constituted of a columnar electric conductor 15a . . . and an insulation layer 15b . . . surrounding the electric conductor 15a.” Id. at 6:21–25. Similarly, reference numeral 15 refers to the “through plug” in Figures 1C, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 7B. Id. at 6:35–40, 7:10–38, 8:10– 17, 8:32–38, 8:65–9:43. Where it is referred to in these same parts of the ’903 patent, the conductive core is discussed as merely a portion of the through plug and is referred to by the reference numeral 15a. Id. Thus, the ’903 patent consistently defines the through plug as having two portions: both a conductive core and a surrounding insulation layer. This is true whether the patent is referring to either of its disclosed embodiments or the prior art. Based on this unambiguous usage, we determine that the ’903 patent defines the term “through plug” as including both a conductive core and a surrounding insulating layer. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320–21 (“the specification ‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996))).” slip op. at 5

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

    “We are not persuaded that the Petition adequately identifies how Christensen teaches or suggests a through plug as that term is used in the ’903 patent. As noted above, the ’903 patent requires a through plug to have both a conductive core and a surrounding insulating layer. It is clear on the current record that Christensen’s “conductive stud” could correspond to the conductive portion of such a through plug. Ex. 1033, 4:66–5:1 (“the stud 34 may comprise any number of conductive materials”). But Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Christensen teaches or suggests the surrounding insulating layer necessary to turn the conductive core into a through plug. First, Petitioner does not allege that Christensen teaches or suggests such a layer. Pet. 33–34. Second, Christensen discloses the use of “conductive materials” and “material[s] which promote[] adhesion to the surrounding oxide such as titanium or titanium nitride.” Ex. 1033, 4:66–5:1, 5:15–20. None of these materials are identified by Christensen as insulators. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Christensen alone teaches or suggests the through plug of the challenged claims. b. Christensen and Lin Petitioner also argues that the combination of Christensen and Lin teaches or suggests the through plug of the challenged claims. Pet. 34–36. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[t]o the extent [it is determined] that Christensen alone is not sufficient because the conductive stud 34 does not extend all the way through wafer 12, Christensen in view of Lin renders obvious a ‘through plug.’” Id. at 34. According to this argument, “Lin teaches a backside process for forming ‘a conductive plug through a silicon’ wafer and an insulation layer,” and it would have been obvious to form such a plug “from the backside of the wafer 12 below [Christensen’s] conductive stud 34,” such that the combination of the two structures would form a conductive path all the way through the structure of Christensen’s Figures 8B and 9. Id. at 34–35 (emphasis omitted). As with the argument based on Christensen alone, however, this argument does not show sufficiently that the combination of Christensen and Lin teaches or suggests a through plug that has both a conductive core and a surrounding insulating layer. Lin describes its structure as a “conductive plug” and does not describe any insulation surrounding that structure. Ex. 1054, 1:60–64, 3:2– 34, 4:23–32, Fig. 7. “The conductive plugs” of Lin “typically compris[e] metal,” which Lin does not describe as an insulator. Id. at 3:21–25. Nor does Petitioner allege the presence of a conductive core surrounded by insulation either in Lin itself or in the combination of Lin and Christensen. Pet. 34–36. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Christensen and Lin teaches or suggests the through plug of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

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

    “An invention is not obvious just ‘because all of the elements that comprise the invention were known in the prior art.’” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Instead, “a finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational[e] as to why the prior art references would have worked together.’” Id. (quoting Power-One, 599 F.3d at 1352). This rationale requires “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine the known elements in the manner required in the claim at issue. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[I]t can be important to” include within this reasoning “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. Here, Petitioner offers two reasons to combine the teachings of Shim and Shirakawa. First, Petitioner argues that “Shim’s diffusion teachings would facilitate the formation of” Shirakawa’s collector layer. Pet. 65–66. On the present record, we do not find this reason sufficiently persuasive. Even though Shim does teach a way to make the n-GaAs that Shirakawa uses, Shirakawa teaches a different way to make the same material, and other prior-art references agree with Shirakawa. Ex. 1022, 1:34–40 (“silicon ions of a silicon layer formed on a GaAs substrate are diffused by means of ion-implantation method using little energy and annealing treatment”); Ex. 1005, 9:36–42 (first embodiment “collector layer” is “laminated on top of a semi-insulating GaAs substrate . . . by epitaxial growth process”), 12:47–48 (fourth embodiment made in same way as first embodiment); Ex. 1016, 8:7–19 (“a highly doped n type GaAs subcollector layer . . . [and other layers] are made to grow above a semiinsulating GaAs substrate . . . by a metal organic vapor phase epitaxial growth method”); Ex. 1025, 4:40–45 (teaching “[f]orming two flat epitaxial layers of gallium arsenide to obtain [a] collector,” including “a layer . . . of the n+ conductivity type and a layer . . . of the n -conductivity type” by “epitaxial growth . . . from the vapour phase or from the liquid phase”). The mere fact that Shim offers an alternative process does not, in the absence of a reason to adopt that alternative process, provide a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make Shirakawa’s n-GaAs via Shim’s method rather than via Shirakawa’s own method. In addition, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Peter Elenius, testifies that the ion implantation involved in Shim’s diffusion process would damage Shirakawa’s gallium arsenide in a way that would dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from using that process to produce the HBT of Shirakawa. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–57. The other reason that Petitioner provides to combine the teachings of Shim and Shirakawa is that Shim’s diffusion “method us[es] little energy and annealing treatment.” Pet. 66 (quoting Ex. 1022, 1:34–40). Shim’s method is described as “diffus[ion] by means of ion-implantation method using little energy and annealing treatment,” which Shim distinguishes from earlier methods “widely used in the art,” which involved “ion-implantation . . . using high energy.” Ex. 1022, 1:12–40. Shim teaches that its lower-energy ion implantation does not suffer from the “problem” of the earlier method, “damaging of ohmic contacts of metal electrodes” due to the injection of “lots of impurity ions.” Id. at 1:17–22; see id. at 3:37–40 (“the manufacturing method of the present invention can prevent damage to be generated in ohmic contacts of source/drain electrodes due to ion-injecting of high density”). Thus, the lower energy of Shim’s process is a benefit of that process over earlier ion implantation processes, which use higher energy. Shim does not teach that its use of lower-energy ion implantation is an improvement over other processes, such as the epitaxial growth taught by Shirakawa and the other references cited by Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why lower energy would be a benefit of the Shim- Shirakawa combination over Shirakawa alone. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Shirakawa and Shim to arrive at a combination that teaches or suggests the “diffusion layer patterns” of the challenged claims. slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,402,903
• Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. v. Alcon Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2021-01053 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable: Grounds 2 and 4 lacked motivation and a reasonable expectation of success, while Grounds 1 and 3 relied on a rejected construction.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “under which “the ‘curvature of the focal plane’ must ‘track the natural curvature of the lens.’” Pet. 12. Petitioner asserts that this second “construction is the basis for Grounds 2 and 4 in [the] Petition.” Id. Petitioner’s second proposed construction repeats, word-for-word, language that appears in claim 1. Compare id. (“‘curvature of the focal plane’ must ‘track the natural curvature of the lens’”), with Ex. 1001, 12:17–18 (“curvature of the focal plane” will “track the natural curvature of the lens”). That suggests to us that Petitioner, in advancing this alternative construction, agrees with Patent Owner that those words can, and should, “be given their plain and ordinary meaning.” Resp. 19. We agree with the parties’ suggestions that those words, as they appear in the full claim limitation at hand, are clear and unambiguous. The challenged claims require multiple “layers of photodisrupted bubbles,” which “form a regular array of cells in the target region” defining “cell boundaries,” and wherein those “layers are created by scanning the pulsed laser with the optics module according to a curvature of the focal plane of the optics module to track the natural curvature of the lens.” Ex. 1001, 12:13–18 (Board’s emphasis). Where the same word, “curvature,” appears in two phrases within claim 1, namely, “curvature of the focal plane” and “curvature of the lens,” we determine that the phrases relate to one another and that the word should be assigned a single, cohesive meaning. Id. Read fairly, this limitation indicates that the layers of photodisrupted bubbles that form the cell boundaries are generated by scanning a pulsed laser according to a single curvature – a curvature that characterizes both the focal plane of the optics module and the natural bend of the lens. Id. Accordingly, on this record, we determine that the “curvature of the focal plane” itself must “track the natural curvature of the lens.” Id. Other evidence of record supports that determination. Most notably, the record of examination includes this unequivocal statement: “It was Applicant’s inventive idea to design the laser surgical system such that the curvature of its focal plane tracks the curvature of the eye.” Ex. 1002, 133.7” slip op. at 17

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

    “The problem of mismatch simply “is not present in flat-field corrected systems that are imaging a flat surface because there is no mismatch. As a result, Frey and Blumenkranz do not have the blurriness problem Koschmieder describes.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2030, 88:21–89:7; Ex. 2033 ¶ 104). Furthermore, the proposed modification of Frey’s system would have been expected to “cause blurring or defocusing” to occur “when used with a pulsed laser source” system, such as Frey’s, that employs a laser-shot-by-laser-shot scan pattern to generate, point-by-point, layers of photodisrupted tissue in the eye. Ex. 2033 ¶ 122. Accordingly, on this record, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not “have been motivated to modify Frey with Koschmieder’s solution to address a problem of laser focus that is nonexistent in Frey.” Id.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “opinions regarding whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success for Petitioner’s combination” of prior art references. Sur-reply 8 (citing cases). We agree with Patent Owner that, based on the record presented, Dr. Bentley “has no experience designing laser-based systems for eye surgery” and, further, that a question arises as to whether Dr. Bentley “even understand[s] what photodisruption is” within the context of claim 1. Id. at 7–8 (and citations therein to Exs. 1004, 1046, 1047, and 2051). Although Dr. Bentley possesses excellent credentials in optics generally, this witness reports no experience with surgical optics, much less optics for laser surgery of the eye. Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 3–9; see generally Ex. 1047 (curriculum vitae). Dr. Bentley currently advises students working on optics for “microscope objectives, digital and film camera lenses, zoom lenses, fisheye lens, riflescopes,” and other devices––but none, on this record, is 6 The record also includes a declaration of Edward A. DeHoog, Ph.D. (Ex. 2001), which Patent Owner filed with the Preliminary Response but does not advance in the Response. See generally Resp. demonstrated by Petitioner as applicable to laser surgery, much less a method of laser surgery whereby layers of photodisrupted bubbles are generated within eye tissue. Ex. 1047, 1; see Ex. 2051, 45:8–21 (Dr. Bentley’s deposition transcript). Dr. Bentley’s prior experience includes, for example, working on optics related to “broadband zoom lens for cancer screening, several high-resolution broadband infrared cameras,” and “a multi-photon endoscope objective,” but includes no work, on this record, that relates to optics for laser surgery of the eye. Id. We recognize that Dr. Bentley is named on four patents and frequently lectures and publishes articles on optical imaging in general, but the list of patents and publications persuades us that Dr. Bentley possesses little, if any, experience with surgical optics. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5–9. We agree with Patent Owner, moreover, that during Dr. Bentley’s deposition, it became clear that this witness “is not an expert in laser-based systems for photodisrupted surgery” and has no experience with, or specific knowledge about, optics that perform “photodisruption” of lens tissue. Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 2051, 61:17–62:17, 65:12–17, 66:18–68:21, 72:4–72:20, 73:10– 73:19, 75:11–76:13, 80:9–16, 81:13–83:25, 85:13–86:3, 89:25–92:7, 94:25– 95:23, 121:3–121:12 (deposition transcript)). By contrast, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Dhalla, has “many years of” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because, on this record, it appears consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art and the written description of the invention provided in the ’356 patent. Pet. 10 (Petitioner’s asserted definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan). Neither party, however, advances information explaining how or why the result in this case would change based on the definition selected by the Board.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,427,356 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,427,356
• FTC Solar, Inc. v. FCX Solar, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-01101 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, physics, or a similar discipline, and at least three to five years of work experience designing, analyzing, or evaluating solar trackers.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–39). Patent Owner supplements Petitioner’s description of a POSITA to include as similar disciplines “applied aerodynamics, aerospace engineering, fluid dynamics, photovoltaic systems engineering” and asserts that a POSITA in the field of solar trackers would “enlist the expertise of a damper expert in designing the dampers to provide desired characteristics to trackers.” Prelim. Resp. 14. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, as modified by Patent Owner; any differences between the parties’ descriptions do not affect our analysis. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 6

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the litigation, the District Court determined that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand “damping ratio” to refer to “the damper providing the photovoltaic system with different damping ratios depending on the conditions.” Ex. 2005, 6:15–20. The District Court noted that intrinsic evidence supports “references to a damper having a [damping] ratio are made in the context of a damper installed in a system and are not about a damper in isolation.” Id. at 6:21–25. The District Court also noted that FTC’s7 expert, Dr. Codd, recognized that “pluck testing is the primary tool for determining a damping ratio, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with how to perform pluck testing.” Id. at 8:4–7. In view of the parties’ agreed-upon definition of the term “damping ratio” and the District Court’s claim construction analysis, we construe “damping ratio” to mean “a ratio determined by dividing the actual damping coefficient of a system by the critical damping coefficient of the system.”” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “parameter that is used imprecisely in the claims of the ’782 Patent to signify the damping force provided by the damper to the system.” Pet. 7 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40 n.7). Thus, the Petition acknowledges a difference between the terms “damping ratio” and “damping force.” The footnote concludes “[h]ere, Petitioner has adopted Patent Owner’s interpretation of ‘damping ratio’ to signify the damping force provided by the damper to the invariant system.” Id. Petitioner cites to paragraph 40 n.7 of the Codd Declaration to support its assertion, but that paragraph parrots the language in the Petition, and Dr. Codd does not provide the underlying facts supporting his testimony.9 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,903,782
• Costar Realty Information, Inc. v. Clantech, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2022 · IPR2022-00799 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be shown unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “Statutory interpretation “begins with the ‘language of the statute.’” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999); see also SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (“Where a statute’s language carries a plain meaning, the duty of an administrative agency is to follow its commands as written.”). Here, the plain meaning of the language in Section 315(a)(1) is clear. The plain meaning directs us to first determine if a petitioner “filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim” of the challenged patent “before the date on which the petition was filed.” If the petitioner did file such a civil action, Section 315(a)(1) commands that “the inter partes review may not be instituted.” Applying the plain meaning to the facts here, as of the April 4, 2022 filing date of the Petition, Petitioner had not “filed a civil action challenging the validity” of the ’421 patent. Thus, we determine that the Petition is not barred by § 315(a)(1). Accordingly, we determine that the Petition is not barred by Section 315(a).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelOther

    “(“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and 2–3 years of experience in Web design, data communications, and general Information Technology system administration.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner also contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for experience and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. At this stage of the nor proposes a different level of skill in the art. On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Petitioner states that it “do[es] not believe that any claims require construction to resolve the patentability disputes here,” and, as a result, Petitioner “appl[ies] the plain and ordinary meaning for each claim term.” Pet. 5. Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term “formatting information necessary for . . .”/“formatting information for . . .” that appears in each of the independent claims of the ’421 patent. Prelim. Resp. 11–14. purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “A reference does not teach away “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “identifying one or more external fonts used to render at least one of the plurality of display characters” that “include formatting information necessary for the hand-held device to render the at least one of the plurality of displayed characters for display,” wherein “the plurality of display characters are displayed by a program module of the operating system using the one or more external font files.” We disagree, on this record, that Collins’ identification of problems associated with “sending a copy of all fonts and font interpreters needed to properly render the characters of a document along with it” teaches away from the invention described in claim 1. Collins as a whole teaches tagging fonts used to display the text, which enable document authors to specify fonts other than the basic HTML text type, creating new font descriptions for any new character-font combinations in the document in portable font resource (PFR) files that describes the shape and sequence of moves, lines, and curves that render the display character, and installing those PFR files. Ex. 1005, 24:10–14, 24:20–28, 27:11–14, 27:61–62, 29:41–43, 30:38–46, 34:10–17, 40:19–22. Accordingly, Collins teaches identifying external fonts and using external fonts as claim 1 recites. Independent claim 6 includes” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,886,421
• Costar Realty Information, Inc. v. Clantech, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2022 · IPR2022-00798 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–28 would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “On this record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that Collins discloses “the display character is displayed using the exact same font” as required by claim 1. In particular, Petitioner does not explain how a POSITA would have understood Collins’ rendered document “with virtually the exact same appearance” (Ex. 1005, 10:6–12) to disclose a rendered document “displayed using the exact same font” as claim 1 requires. Similarly, Collins explains that its invention “enables virtually any document created with virtually any font to be accurately reproduced on another computer that does not contain the original font descriptions from which it was created.” Id. at 10:40–45 (emphasis added). Again, Petitioner does not explain how teaching the display of an accurate reproduction (i.e., a copy) of the font discloses the recited “displaying the exact same font.” If Collins’ rendered image on the second computer had the exact same font as the original fonted document, that rendered image should have the exact same appearance as the fonted document, not nearly the exact same appearance, as Collins’ use of “virtually” and “accurate reproduction” to describe the displayed characters suggests.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,522,127
• Google LLC v. Ecofactor Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00982 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 10–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 11–19 as obvious over Wedekind and Ehlers, and claim 10 as obvious over Wedekind, Ehlers, and Jenkins; claims 20–30 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We note that the parties agree on the educational background of a person of ordinary skill in the art. And although the parties offer different levels of experience for a person of ordinary skill in the art, there is some overlap, as both parties require experience with HVAC systems. Pet. 15 (requiring experience with “building energy management”); PO Resp. 5–6 (requiring experience with HVAC controls, and acknowledging that “building energy management” includes controlling HVAC systems). Accordingly, we do not consider the difference between the parties’ proposals to be material. Moreover, neither party asserts that its positions or the outcome depends on which definition we apply in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10

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

    “B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Reply ignore the express statement in the Petition characterizing sensors 36 in Wedekind as “a source external to the building.” Sur-reply 2 (quoting Pet. 28), 3. Patent Owner also argues this is a new argument that we should disregard. Sur-Reply 2. We disagree. Although Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner contends Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 are a source external to the building, that is not the only argument Petitioner presents. In the Petition, Petitioner contends more generally that Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 “measure the outside air temperature.” Pet. 28. Petitioner also argues that Ehlers provides weather data including outside temperatures, and that the source of the data is a weather service provider that is external to the building. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:53–54, 35:13–17). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious “to replace Wedekind’s outside temperature sensors 36 with receiving outside temperature data from a network connection,” as Ehlers teaches. Pet. 32. In view of this, we agree with, and are persuaded by, Petitioner’s argument that it does not rely only on Wedekind to meet the limitation that “the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building.” Reply 10. Additionally, the presence of these arguments in the Petition undermines Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner is attempting to present new arguments in the Reply. Similarly, Petitioner acknowledges in the Petition that Wedekind does not expressly teach the second data is received from a network connection, and, therefore, relies on Ehlers’ disclosure of receiving data from a network connection. Pet. 30; Reply 11. Patent Owner does not dispute that Ehlers discloses receiving weather data from a network connection. See PO Resp. 15–28; Sur-reply 3–8. In view of the foregoing, Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that the combined disclosures of Wedekind and Ehlers teach or suggest “the one or more processors further configured to receive a second data from a network connection, wherein the second data from the network connection is collected from a source external to the building” claim 1 requires.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments to be persuasive. Petitioner presents undisputed evidence, based on the disclosure of Wedekind and Ehlers, that obtaining outside temperatures either from local sensors or over a network was known in the art. Pet. 28–32; Ex. 1006, 4:45–47; Ex. 1008, 9:50–63. Petitioner also directs us to evidence, including in Ehlers itself, supporting Petitioner’s reasoning that replacing Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors with a network-based weather data service would have saved the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Pet. 32; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1008, 39:54–57; Reply 13. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not directly challenge Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers to avoid the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors. Reply 13.5 Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges that Wedekind “expressly indicates that there must be multiple sensors of outdoor temperature for sufficient accuracy in Wedekind’s complex computational model.” PO Resp. 26; Ex. 1006, 3:62–67. The need for multiple sensors in Wedekind 5 We recognize Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to connect Wedekind’s outside air temperature sensors 36 to a network because it would “increase costs.” PO Resp. 23–24. Patent Owner, however, presents this argument before it addresses Petitioner’s proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers. See PO Resp. 23–24 (referring to cost increases first, and addressing the proposed combination of Wedekind and Ehlers in the next paragraph). Thus, Patent Owner’s cost argument does not appear to address Petitioner’s assertion regarding cost savings in view of the proposed combination. Nor does Patent Owner present evidence regarding, or explain adequately, what costs it is referring to, or how those costs would increase. PO Resp. 23–24; Ex. 2005 ¶ 61. By way of contrast, Petitioner’s arguments regarding cost savings are supported by the disclosure of Ehlers itself. Ex. 1008, 39:54–57. strengthens Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Ehlers’ teaching regarding avoiding the cost and effort of installing multiple sensors, would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Additionally, Patent Owner’s own declarant characterized Ehlers’ discussion of “lowering the cost of installation and ongoing maintenance” as “teach[ing] away from external sensors.” Ex. 1023, 58:7–18. These arguments and evidence undermine Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to provide any analysis as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Wedekind in view of Ehlers. Sur-reply 3–4; PO Resp. 25–28. Petitioner also argues, and provides evidence in the form of testimony from Dr. Shah demonstrating, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Wedekind’s system by connecting Wedekind’s processing means to a network connection such as Ehlers’ phone input or communications link, and would have obtained predictable results. Pet. 33; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104. Patent Owner does not dispute this evidence. To the contrary, Patent Owner appears to concede that the proposed combination would work, although not as reliably as Wedekind’s hardwired system. PO Resp. 25–26. As a result, and in the absence of any evidence or argument suggesting otherwise, we credit Dr. Shah’s testimony. Furthermore, Ehlers teaches, in connection with providing data obtained from a weather service provider over a network, that “[t]he data may be provided at regular intervals and be sufficiently localized for acceptable accuracy.” Ex. 1008, 9:58–60. This statement from Ehlers itself undermines Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged problems with transmitting data over networks and insufficient accuracy, including Patent Owner’s argument that Wedekind teaches away from the approach used by Ehlers. PO Resp. 25–28. Nevertheless, even if we were to give Patent Owner the full credit of its arguments regarding unreliable transmission of data over networks and data obtained from weather service providers being less useful than data obtained from sensors at a specific structure, obviousness “does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As discussed above, Petitioner’s evidence and arguments demonstrate that using Ehlers’ network to transmit temperature data was at least a suitable option. For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Wedekind in view of Ehlers, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. iii.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,612,983 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,612,983

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.