- Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00267 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed § 103 combination.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“green, left), placed inside the housing between the housing and heating element (red), and surrounding the heating element and portions of the liquid storage portion (blue). Otherwise, Combined Figure 4 is nearly the same as Annotated Figure 4. Compare Combined Fig. 4, with Ann. Fig. 4. Thus, Petitioner does not propose a simple substitution to include the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 in the same manner as used in Thorens231. Rather, Petitioner proposes including the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 and then further modifying its placement by inserting it into the housing. See Combined Fig. 4. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Janet persuasively explain why this arrangement would be expected to be successful nor do they allege that such a modification would have been within the skill set of the ordinarily skilled artisan. In contrast, Patent Owner explains that Petitioner’s [Combined] Figure 4 appears to block any airflow through the device and out of the mouthpiece. Petitioner and its expert do not account for how the mouthpiece would be secured to the liquid storage portion in Thorens788. Moreover, as drawn by Petitioner, the wick touches what is presumably the air inlet for the mouthpiece (although Petitioner does not discuss where the air inlet is), which could adversely impact performance or user experience, such as draw resistance[.] Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have been obvious, including that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention”).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,134,722 - Berkeley Lights, Inc. v. The University Of British ColumbiaRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2023 · IPR2021-01249 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Berkeley Lights’ rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in its prior decision that claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2022). There is an abuse of discretion if we have made “a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or in basing [our] decision on an error of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In a request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a 1 We further refer to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 18, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 22, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 29, “PO Sur-reply”). decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“light of the background knowledge in the art. In particular, we found that Petitioner had not adequately shown that the background knowledge in the art would have been sufficient to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art how to apply the techniques such as “laser tweezers” that Dimov mentions briefly, in a way that would have allowed further analyses of cells outside Dimov’s device. See Dec. 29–31. We also found that Petitioner had not persuasively shown that modifying Dimov’s device to make its trenches accessible with a micropipette was within the background knowledge in the art at the time of the claimed invention. See Dec. 31–34.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner points to only one brief mention, in its Petition, of piercing the top layer of Dimov’s device to retrieve cells with a micropipette. Id. at 6 (citing Pet. 40). That argument was not backed by any evidence other than a conclusory statement by Dr. Meinhart repeating the argument in the Petition. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶ 120. We do not credit that testimony because it lacks factual support. Xerox Corp v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (the testimony of a declarant that merely repeats, verbatim, conclusory assertions from a petition, without citing additional supporting evidence or providing technical reasoning to support the testimony, is entitled to little weight). In particular, to the extent that Petitioner argues on rehearing that Dimov’s top layer could have been pierced successfully by a micropipette because it was only 40 microns thick, Petitioner did not properly make this argument during trial or provide adequate evidentiary support.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Although Dr. Meinhart briefly mentions this in his declaration (see Ex. 1039 ¶ 192), Petitioner has not shown that it made this argument during trial, except to the extent that Petitioner improperly incorporated it by reference from Dr. Meinhart’s declaration. See Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 190–196); 37 CFR § 42.6(a)(3). In any event, we do not credit Dr. Meinhart’s testimony on this point because he provides no factual support. See Ex. 1039 ¶ 192; 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.”). As Patent Owner pointed out in its Sur-Reply, Dr. Meinhart acknowledged at deposition that increasing the spot size would have reduced the lateral gradient force of the levitation laser. PO Sur-reply 23 (citing Ex. 2013, 344:18–345:5). We agree with Patent Owner that “Dr. Meinhart . . . did not consider how this reduction in force would have affected the laser’s ability to levitate a cell in Park’s well successfully (especially with cultured cells through Park’s recirculation pattern).” Id.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,087,408 - 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00088 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied 10X Genomics’ rehearing request, leaving intact the finding that claims 15–17 were not shown unpatentable over Ismagilov 091 and US Pub. No. 2002/0058332 A1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Petitioner had the burden of proving that the challenged claims are unpatentable. There is no requirement for the Board to provide notice to Petitioner and an opportunity to fill gaps in its case before issuing a final decision that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proof. Allowing Petitioner to submit new evidence under the circumstances presented here would be inconsistent with the standard applicable to a request for rehearing, which” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“emulsion-breaking would have been either necessary or desirable when synthesizing biological compounds, pharmaceuticals, or nanoparticles, as disclosed in Ismagilov 091. Dr. Fair’s testimony that Ismagilov 091’s uses “would require breaking the emulsions” is conclusory and unexplained. Ex. 1008 ¶ 191 (testifying without explanation that Ismagilov’s “uses would require breaking the emulsions to aggregate sufficient quantities of reaction product”). In addition, Petitioner did not cite even this conclusory testimony in its argument that emulsion-breaking was necessary. Pet. 51. Meanwhile, Ismagilov 091 provides numerous examples of uses of its methods and devices, but no suggestion that emulsion-breaking would be necessary or desirable. Accordingly, we determined that Petitioner did not “direct us to evidence sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to place the droplets onto a second continuous phase carrier fluid comprising a destabilizing surfactant to destabilize the droplets, as recited in claims 15–17.” Dec. 63. As discussed more fully below, none of Petitioner’s arguments for rehearing persuades us that we erred in determining that the evidence of record failed to show a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used PFO to break the emulsions in Ismagilov 091.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,896,722 - Unified Patents, Inc v. Mv3 Partners LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 2, 2020 · IPR2019-00474 · APJ Jean R Homere · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing denied; the Board maintained that claims 1–6, 8, 10–21, 23–38, 40, 42–53, and 55–61 were not shown unpatentable because Wang did not teach the separate determining limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“of the “determining” limitation, not a construction of the language in that limitation. As noted in the Decision, the claim language plainly requires that the STB separately determine whether the user is permitted to provide to the external display device a specific media content received at the mobile device. Id. at 16–17. This is consistent with Petitioner’s view expressed at the hearing. See Tr. 20:6–16 (Petitioner acknowledging that the claim recites the “authenticating” step and “a separate determining step” where “the determining step happens after the authenticating step” (emphasis added)). Although Petitioner disputes that the Specification adequately supports the “determining” limitation, it is not an issue necessitating review by our mere recitation of the claim language. Further, we are not at liberty to ignore the “determining” limitation, despite its alleged lack of written description, in assessing it during a prior art challenge. As set forth in the Decision, we fully addressed the language of the claims as challenged in the Petition. We are not persuaded that in doing so we misapprehended or overlooked any argument raised by Petitioner. In particular, we noted that Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to show that Wang teaches integrating the authentication feature into the STB to authenticate mobile users to access content. Final Dec. 16–17. However, we found such teaching to fall short of satisfying the separate and distinct “determining” limitation, as required by the claim. Id. at 18. As explained in the Decision, Petitioner and its expert addressed the “authenticating” and “determining” limitations together, even though they are separate limitations of the claim. Id. (citing Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1003 ¶ 73). We were unpersuaded by Petitioner’s theory that the “determining” limitation “automatically” occurs by virtue of the authenticating step. Id. Furthermore, we noted the evidence of record was insufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed modification of Wang would have taught or suggested “any additional determination beyond authenticating the user.” Id. at 19.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,863,223 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2019 · IPR2019-00537 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the cited evidence did not overcome the references’ teachings against the proposed modifications.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“As our Decision noted, however, the only support Dr. Paradiso cited for these propositions is a portion of Hackman and a portion of Exhibit 1017. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 99–100; Dec. 17. In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner identifies nothing from its evidence of the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, background art, or reasonable expectation of success that provides any further support for these propositions. Req. Reh’g 4–7. Instead, Petitioner merely argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized some benefits to using a shaft mounted system with a golf club and would have had a reasonable expectation of success for adding such a system to Farrington’s golf club. Id. None of that evidence, however, suffices to overcome Farrington’s disparagement. The mere fact that, for general purposes, externally mounted systems may have benefits or could be successfully added to Farrington’s golf club does not demonstrate that, as Dr. Paradiso testified, the weight, drag or other swing-related issues highlighted by Farrington associated with such a system would be readily overcome. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we overlooked evidence that would overcome Farrington’s disparagement of using a swing analysis device mounted on the outside of its golf club. Background Art, and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner argues that we overlooked evidence regarding the general knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, background art, and reasonable expectation of success when we determined, for Ground 3 (based on Kirby and Kimber), that Petitioner made an insufficient showing to overcome Kirby’s disparagement of using accelerometers, gyroscopes and angular sensors for swing analysis and to overcome Kimber’s disparagement of placing a swing measurement device near the grip. Req. Reh’g 7–12. None of the evidence cited by Petitioner regarding the level of skill in the art, background art, or a reasonable expectation of success, however, would overcome Kirby’s and Kimber’s disparagements. Id. The mere fact that, for general purposes, accelerometers may have some benefits or that there would be a reasonable expectation that they could be successfully added to Kirby’s golf club does not mean that such a modification would avoid the speed and cost issues noted by Kirby or outweigh them. Similarly, the mere fact that for general purposes there may be some advantages to placing an accelerometer near a grip and reasonable expectation that one could be successfully added near a grip would not overcome Kimber’s disparagement of placing a swing measurement device near the grip or outweigh that concern. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we overlooked evidence that would overcome Kirby’s disparagement of using accelerometers, gyroscopes and angular sensors for swing analysis and Kimber’s disparagement of placing a swing measurement device near the grip.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenNot reached
“Ground 3 (obviousness over Kirby and Kimber) that Kirby alone would have rendered claims 1, 6–7, 9–12, 14, 16, and 18–19 obvious. Reh’g Req. 2–3. Ground 4 (obviousness over Kirby, Kimber, and Nusbaum) that Kirby and Nusbaum by themselves would have rendered claim 13 obvious. Id. at 3. Petitioner, however, does not identify where in the Petition it contended that Kimber alone would have rendered claims 1, 6–7, 9–12, 14, 16, and 18–19 obvious or that Kirby and Nusbaum by themselves would have rendered claim 13 obvious. Id. at 2–3. To the contrary, according to the Petition, the basis for Ground 3 is “Obvious under §103(a) over the combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0206837 (‘Kirby,’ EX1013) and Great Britain Patent Application Publication 2430890 (‘Kimber,’ EX1014).” Pet. 4. Similarly, the basis for Ground 4 is “Obvious under §103(a) over the combination of Kirby, Kimber, and Nusbaum.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we overlooked any contention that Kirby alone or Kirby and Nusbaum by themselves would have rendered claims 1, 6–7, 9– 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18–19 obvious.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,831,905 - Commvault Systems, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 18, 2018 · IPR2017-02178 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because Medina ’93 did not teach or suggest the required page-by-page binary choice between compression methods.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). We “review [our] decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c). In addition, we may not consider an argument made in a request for rehearing unless the request “specifically identif[ies] . . . the place where [that argument] was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. § 42.71(d). After considering the Request for Rehearing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that we abused our discretion in denying institution. Accordingly, we deny the Request for Rehearing. slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“persuasive of an abuse of discretion in failing to institute inter partes review. Under this argument, Petitioner adopts our construction of claim 1 and maintains its definition of the page of Medina ’93 as the data block of claim 1. Req. 14. Under the construction we applied in our Institution Decision, claim 1 requires a binary choice between compressing a given data block using the single data compression encoder and compressing that data block using the one or more content-dependent data compression encoders. Dec. 11–13. Thus, Petitioner must show that Medina ’93 teaches or suggests a binary choice between two types of compression to be applied on a page-by-page basis. Even if Petitioner is correct that it is possible, under the right circumstances, for the system of Medina ’93 to operate in a way that results in compressing an entire page of text or in compressing an entire page of non-text data, Medina ’93 does not teach or suggest the required binary choice between those two outcomes, because its system is capable of compressing portions of a page using one method and other portions of the same page using a different method. Ex. 1004, 5:16–60, Fig. 4. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that we abused our discretion by denying institution of inter partes review on the ground of obviousness over Medina ’93.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,054,728 - PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00350 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution for claims 1–13 of the ’191 patent and claims 1–14 of the ’288 patent because the petitions did not establish a reasonable likelihood …
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“review trial, the Board “will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A petition must provide the Board with a coherent, clearly articulated argument why references would be combined with a reasonable expectation of success, something the Petitions in these cases did not do. Thus, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked Free-Flow’s arguments, or that our Decisions not to institute trial were an abuse of discretion. B.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“separation (which is easier to achieve with variable perforations than with Perkins’ uniform perforations) is advantageous when the claimed web moves through Mykleby’s ‘entire automatic packaging apparatus.’” Req. Reh’g 7 (citing Pet. 25–28). We do not disagree that Mykleby’s variable perforations permit some portions of the web to separate during inflation, while others remain connected. See Ex. 1007, 10:49–54. But we discern no disclosure in Mykleby that permitting partial separation is advantageous, or a feature that a person of skill in that art would wish to apply to other webs. Rather, Mykleby suggests that it is advantageous to prevent full separation of the filled bags while the web is still moving through the apparatus. See id. at 7:36–39 (“embodiment is advantageous since upper perforated portion 132 can remain intact as the continuous sheet is transported through the different stations of automatic packaging apparatus”). In other words, Mykleby does not encourage partial separation, but rather it discourages complete separation. The Petitions based the reason to combine on Perkins’ recognition that “automation generally increases production rate and decreases costs associated with production of commercial products.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 77). Free-Flow went on to argue that the partial separation of Mykleby would “increase production rate” and “decrease costs.” Id. In our Decisions, we evaluated this justification and found it lacking, concluding that Free-Flow had not adequately explained why the partial separation of Mykleby would increase production rate or decrease costs when used in the web of Perkins. Dec. 14. In other words, given that the web of Perkins remains completely connected during inflation, Mykleby does not support incorporating perforations that would cause partial separation. The Requests for Rehearing do not persuade us that this was in error, or that our Decisions not to institute trial were an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,550,191 - PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00351 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place the denial of institution because the petitions did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine Perkins and Mykleby for the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“review trial, the Board “will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“background art” references to support a reason to combine, without listing those references as part of the ground of unpatentability. But that reliance needs to be made explicit, something that Free-Flow did not do sufficiently in its Petitions. A petitioner cannot expect the Board to sift through its petition to find disclosures in the background art, discussed in a separate part of the petition, and not incorporated sufficiently into the discussion of the ground of unpatentability. See Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc., Case IPR2013-00223, slip op. 4 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2013) (Paper 14) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”) (quoting DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999)). A petition must provide the Board with a coherent, clearly articulated argument why references would be combined with a reasonable expectation of success, something the Petitions in these cases did not do. Thus, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked Free-Flow’s arguments, or that our Decisions not to institute trial were an abuse of discretion. B. slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“background art” references to support a reason to combine, without listing those references as part of the ground of unpatentability. But that reliance needs to be made explicit, something that Free-Flow did not do sufficiently in its Petitions. A petitioner cannot expect the Board to sift through its petition to find disclosures in the background art, discussed in a separate part of the petition, and not incorporated sufficiently into the discussion of the ground of unpatentability. See Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc., Case IPR2013-00223, slip op. 4 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2013) (Paper 14) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”) (quoting DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999)). A petition must provide the Board with a coherent, clearly articulated argument why references would be combined with a reasonable expectation of success, something the Petitions in these cases did not do. Thus, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked Free-Flow’s arguments, or that our Decisions not to institute trial were an abuse of discretion. B. slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,767,288 - Pungkuk Edm Wire Manufacturing Company v. Seong, Ki ChulRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 31, 2016 · IPR2016-00762 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Petitioner’s rehearing request; claims 1–5 remain instituted only on the Mukherjee anticipation ground, with institution denied on the Briffod and Takano anticipation grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We will grant a request for rehearing of a petition decision if the requesting party demonstrates “an abuse of discretion” in the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). However, we will grant a request for rehearing only if it also “specifically identif[ies] . . . the place where each matter [that we misapprehended or overlooked] was previously addressed.” Id. § 42.71(d). After considering the Request for Rehearing, the Decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently that Briffod discloses the “crack structure” of the recited claims on the surface of its film 2. Dec. 14–15. This was based on the failure of Petitioner and Briffod to explain whether the voids that Petitioner contends constitute cracks are present on “the surface” of the layer in question. Id. In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner now argues that conclusion was an abuse of discretion. Request 6–9. Petitioner argues that Briffod discloses voids contained within film 2 and that these voids “qualify as cracks.” Id. at 6. As stated in our Decision, we agree that Briffod discloses voids within film 2, and, for the purposes of deciding whether to institute inter partes review, we accepted Petitioner’s contention that the voids in question constitute “cracks.” Dec. 13–14. The challenged claims, however, require that the “alloy layer has a crack structure on its surface,” and the Petition failed to explain why the presence of cracks within a layer demonstrates the presence of cracks on the surface of that layer.” slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Finally, Petitioner argues that the roughness of the surface of film 2 and the roughness of overlying thin film 3 demonstrate the presence of voids on the surface of film 2. Request 8–9. Once again, Petitioner fails to explain adequately where this argument was made previously. Petitioner intermittently points to portions of the Petition where it contends that this argument was made previously, but Petitioner also intersperses arguments that do not cite to the Petition. Id. (citing Pet. 13–14, 23). To the extent that the citations are missing, we cannot consider this argument. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Even if we could consider this argument, we would not be persuaded that it showed an abuse of discretion in our conclusion that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that Briffod discloses the presence of a crack structure on the surface of thin film 2. Briffod shows voids within thin film 2, and Briffod shows that thin film 2 has a rough surface. Ex. 1003, Fig. 1b. Briffod also states that the voids caused by the Kirkendall effect “may be the reason for the observed porosity of [thin film 3].” Id. at 4:21– 29. It is not clear that this establishes a causal relationship of any kind between the presence of voids and the rough surface, because it only posits a possible connection. Even if the voids do cause the surface to be rough, they could do so through several conceivable mechanisms, only one of which is the accumulation of voids at the surface. Petitioner did not explain in the Petition why we should assume any causal relationship, much less the single type of causal relationship that would satisfy the language of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 6,482,535 - Pungkuk Edm Wire Manufacturing Company v. Seong, Ki ChulRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 31, 2016 · IPR2016-00764 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution on the Briffod and Takano anticipation grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Petitioner, as the party challenging the Decision, has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 200 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“evidence presented, that Petitioner established sufficiently that Briffod discloses voids or cracks that are formed in the alloy layer. Dec. 19–20. Specifically, we stated that Briffod describes the surface of thin film 3 as shown in Figure 1b (the claimed “coating layer,” according to Petitioner) as “very rough,” with “many holes of 1 to 2µ which confirms the sponge-like structure suggested by the appearance of the surface.” [Ex. 1003, 4:8–15.] Briffod does not, however, describe the characteristics of film 2, which Petitioner contends is the “alloy layer” required by the claims. See Pet. 29 (quoting Ex. 1003, 2:55–56); id. at 30 (same). Petitioner does not provide any other evidence that shows sufficiently that Briffod discloses voids or cracks that are formed in the alloy layer. Id. Therefore, we considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that cracks or voids are formed in Briffod film 2, and deemed it insufficiently persuasive. Moreover, with respect to Petitioner’s argument that Briffod Figure 1b “illustrates the Kirkendall voids as small circles in the film 2,” we note that Briffod describes Figure 1b as illustrating the Briffod invention “in a schematic manner” (Ex. 1003, 2:51–55), and does not explain what, if anything, the “small circles” drawn in film 2 signify. It is not an abuse of discretion to have made an analysis or conclusion with which a party disagrees. As a result, we did not abuse our discretion in denying institution of inter partes review of claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 10 on the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Briffod.” slip op. at 4
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentable
“to show anticipation because Comparative Example 2, alone, shows all of the features of claims 1 and 6 of the ’036 patent.” Req. Reh’g 13. Petitioner does not point us to where this argument was made in the Petition; instead, Petitioner directs us to page 19 of the Petition, which is an overview of Takano. Id. at 12. In contrast, in the claim charts, which “show features of Takano that correspond to the claims of the ‘036 patent,” Petitioner identifies Example 1 as disclosing some limitations of the claims, and Comparative Example 2 as disclosing others. See, e.g., Pet. 33–34 (claim chart for claim 1). Per 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must point out where the matter was previously addressed in its Petition. We could not have overlooked argument or evidence that was not presented in the Petition. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement a petition.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents 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.