• Pungkuk Edm Wire Manufacturing Company v. Seong, Ki ChulNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2017 · IPR2016-00764 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board entered adverse judgment against claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9; Petitioner did not prove claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 anticipated by Mukherjee because cracks were not shown to be necessarily …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “and instead only addresses the patentability of claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 of the ’036 patent over Mukherjee. See PO Resp. 2–3, 9–28. We asked Patent Owner during the hearing whether it was conceding the unpatentability of the claims that it did not address in the Patent Owner Response (i.e., claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9). Tr. 55:20–56:4 (“[W]e instituted on a number of grounds that you did not -- and on a number of claims that you did not address in your patent owner response. Are you conceding unpatentability of those claims on those grounds?”). Patent Owner’s counsel responded that Patent Owner was conceding the unpatentability of those claims. Id. at 55:20– 56:10 (“JUDGE KOKOSKI: You're conceding that they're [claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9] not patentable? MR. SUTTON: That they're not patentable, that's correct.”). The Board’s rules permit a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). The Board construes a party’s “[a]bandonment of the contest” as a request for adverse judgment. Id. § 42.73(b)(4). Accordingly, we construe Patent Owner’s concession that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 are unpatentable to be an “abandonment of the contest” and a request for adverse judgment as to those claims. Therefore, we enter adverse judgment against claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the ’036 patent. C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner contends that the term “cracks,” which, for purposes of the Decision on Institution, we determined did not require an explicit construction (Dec. on Inst. 11), should be construed to be mean “narrow breaks.” PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner did not address Patent Owner’s proposed construction in its Reply, but when asked during the hearing if it disagreed with it, Petitioner indicated that Patent Owner’s construction was “fine.” Tr. 18:3–21. Based on the record developed at trial, and in the absence of controversy about the construction of the term, we construe “cracks” to mean “narrow breaks.” B.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Inherency requires that the claim limitation in question is necessarily present in the reference. See, e.g., Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[A] prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if that missing characteristic is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating reference.”); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (patent challenger must demonstrate “that ‘the disclosure [of the prior art] is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught [in the prior art] would result in’ the claimed product.”) (citations omitted). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quotation omitted). “If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Petitioner, therefore, must show that cracks in the alloy layer and the coating layer are necessarily present in Mukherjee.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1014–1017, 1019, and 1020. Paper 59. We do not consider the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because, as explained above, even if the disputed evidence is considered, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 of the ’036 patent are unpatentable as anticipated by Mukherjee. Accordingly, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,492,036 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,492,036

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.