• Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp. And CF Crespe LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2019 · IPR2015-00592 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 are unpatentable by collateral estoppel; claims 4, 6–9, and 21 were not shown unpatentable because the combination rationale was insufficient.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “After this proceeding was remanded by the Federal Circuit, we invited the parties to address a proposed procedure that would include additional briefing regarding the impact of the prior holdings that claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 are unpatentable, and the parties filed their respective proposals. Papers 78–80. In its proposal, Petitioner suggested that Patent Owner “has waived the right to address the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9” because “Patent Owner never separately argued for the patentability of these claims.” Paper 79, 1; see MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1378 n.4 (“On remand, the Board may consider whether CRESPE has waived arguments concerning these claims.”). But those claims were not challenged in the earlier proceedings that held claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 unpatentable. Rather, those claims were only challenged in this proceeding with respect to art that was not at issue in the earlier proceedings. In advancing its contention, Petitioner effectively makes the untenable argument that Patent Owner must provide separate reasons for the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9, even when we determine that its own case-in-chief for those claims is insufficient. In addition, Petitioner’s proposal requests briefing on the issues of “whether claims 6, 7 and 20 materially alter the [unpatentability] analysis on which the prior [unpatentability] determinations rested.” Id. We have considered, and deny, that request. The Federal Circuit’s remand order noted that the fact that “MaxLinear was not a party to the other IPRs is . . . irrelevant since Cresta, the predecessor in interest to CRESPE, was party to the original determination.” MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1377. But the Federal Circuit’s order does not state or suggest that the fact that different prior art was considered in the earlier proceedings is similarly irrelevant. Indeed, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he Federal Circuit has not ordered the Board and the parties to start over from scratch, and certainly not with new prior art.” Paper 80, 3; see Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The Board may control its own proceedings, consistent with its governing statutes, regulations, and practice.”). Patent Owner is correct that “[a]llowing new prior art to be considered on remand after the Final Decision on the merits would essentially be starting a new IPR proceeding.” Paper 80, 9. As Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he parties and the Board would have to argue and consider new grounds, new expert testimony would have to be taken and presented, and a new Final Decision would have to be rendered.” Id. The Federal Circuit’s instruction is limited: “We remand this case to the Board so that it may consider the patentability of the surviving disputed dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 21.” MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1378. We have complied with this instruction in two ways: first, by applying the Federal Circuit’s instruction regarding the collateral-estoppel impact on challenged claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20; and, second, by clarifying that Petitioner’s argument regarding the combination of Van De Plassche and Ishikawa compels a conclusion that Petitioner’s showing is insufficient with respect to claims 4, 6–9, and 21, independent of any conclusion previously reached with respect to independent claims 1 and 17. While the Federal Circuit includes language in its remand order that might be construed as suggesting applying different prior art in the latter analysis, 880 F.3d at 1377, the scope of this proceeding is limited by the prior art and the arguments in the Petition here. SAS Institute, 138 S. Ct. at 1356 (“in an inter partes review the petitioner is master of its complaint”); see Paper 80, 8 (Patent Owner addressing potential ambiguity of Federal Circuit’s instruction).” slip op. at 35

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Experience is but one of several factors that may be considered when determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (identifying factors as including the “type of problems encountered in the art,” “prior art solutions to those problems,” “rapidity with which innovations are made,” “sophistication of the technology,” and “educational level of active workers in the field”). “In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate.” Id. Patent Owner’s distinction relates to a portion of one factor (education) in a determination that involves several factors. The significance of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the role it plays in an obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry”). Patent Owner does not explain persuasively how the alleged omission by Petitioner impacts the obviousness analysis. We conclude that Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is consistent with the level of skill generally reflected by the prior art of record, reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Importantly, we find that Patent Owner did not exhaust avenues available to it in attempting to secure answers to its questions from Dr. Hashemi. The line of questioning involving Exhibit 2008 occurred late in the day, “well after the close of business on the east coast,” and an attempt by the parties to telephone the Board during the deposition was unsuccessful. See Opp. 3; Ex. 2006, 154:24–155:4. The parties discussed contacting the Board the following day, and continuing the deposition the day after that, when Petitioner would make Dr. Hashemi available for further cross-examination after receiving guidance from the Board. Ex. 2006, 155:5–157:13. Rather than proceed in this fashion, Patent Owner decided to abandon the line of questioning and passed the witness for redirect: “I think after we talked about it a bit, I think we will withdraw our questions on this document and just move on to redirect.” Id. at 157: 22–25 (emphasis added). Dr. Hashemi could have answered the questions and sought a protective order that would insulate his answers from the public record, providing the Board with the information needed to perform a focused evaluation of the credibility and reliability of specific statements in his testimony. But a significant measure of responsibility for whether Dr. Hashemi’s testimony is tainted with bias lies with Patent Owner for declining to pursue the issue to a point of greater clarification. Indeed, we are limited in how strongly we can fault Petitioner for failing to submit a clarifying declaration from Dr. Hashemi, in light of Patent Owner’s decision to “withdraw” the questions at issue. Because the evidence is insufficiently developed, we are similarly limited in the degree to which we can draw adverse inferences from Dr. Hashemi’s refusal to answer questions, and unable to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Hashemi’s testimony is tainted by an undisclosed bias. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Not reached

    “C. Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 1213–17 as Supplemental Information, which Patent Owner opposes. Papers 83, 86. The Motion asserts that such information is “relevant to the issues in the case, specifically the lack of nexus between any purported secondary consideration, including surprising or unexpected results.” Paper 83, 1. We do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations because we conclude that Petitioner’s case-in-chief is insufficient. Accordingly, we dismiss the Motion as moot.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,075,585 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,075,585
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2018 · IPR2017-00796 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 11–26 are unpatentable: claims 1–6, 9, 11–14, 16–20, 22, 24, and 26 as obvious over Ferguson and Kehr; claims 7, 15, 21, 23, and 25 over Ferguson, Kehr, and Yasushi; claim 8 …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the ’767 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’767 patent and applied prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill and find that a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention would have at least a bachelor’s degree in a suitable engineering field (e.g., mechanical or electrical), or equivalent proficiency, and at least two to three years of experience in the research and/or development of remote patient monitoring systems, such as cardiac remote patient monitoring systems, where more education may substitute for relevant experience and vice versa. Stone Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. This education and experience would include a solid familiarity with the communication between components of a patient monitoring system. Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–14). We also agree with Patent Owner that any differences in the parties’ proposed level of ordinary skill does not impact our analysis. See PO Resp. 8.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not rely on Ferguson’s base station for being both battery-powered and “plugged in,” or having both a landline connection and a cellular connection, as Patent Owner’s argument presumes (Pet. 15–18), nor does Petitioner’s proposed modification require the combined system to disclose such structure (see id.). Furthermore, claim 1 does not require the claimed communications device to be both battery powered and plugged into a wall, or have both a landline and wireless connection. Ex. 1001, 7:2–36. Even if Ferguson only uses a single cellular connection for data transfer (Ex. 1004, 5:30–33 (“[f]or data transfer, the base station connects the memory card or smart card, via modem and land or cellular telephone line”)), we find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to delay routine, non-urgent communications, to avoid tying up that cellular line (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–114). We credit Dr. Stone’s testimony that “incorporating the transmission timing scheme of Kehr into the system of Ferguson would have been routine for one of ordinary skill and desirable for promoting resource efficiency.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 114. In particular, we find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that modifying Ferguson would “strike an appropriate balance of ensuring patient safety (e.g., by requiring immediate transmission of urgent data) while avoiding the use of power and cellular bandwidth resources (e.g., by allowing later transmission of non-urgent data).” Id. (emphasis added).” slip op. at 29

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner. First, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not met its burden of explaining why these exhibits must be excluded as hearsay. Id. at 1. Here, Patent Owner refers to the exhibits as a whole and does not state precisely what aspect of these 18 exhibits are hearsay. See Paper 25, 1– 2. Further, Patent Owner’s argument challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in arguing that “nothing in these [exhibits] states that they are describing pricing for analog-only cellular plans . . . [or] states that users can use free nighttime and weekend minutes for data usage.” Id. at 1. By asserting that “nothing in” the exhibits support Dr. Stone’s testimony, Patent Owner’s argument is a criticism of Dr. Stone’s testimony and instead focuses on the weight that we should give to the exhibits—and its related testimony—rather than to the exhibits’ admissibility as hearsay. See Paper 29, 4 (“[s]uch arguments go the exhibits’ weight, not their admissibility”). Thus, it is not a proper basis for a motion to exclude. Second, we agree with Petitioner that even if the exhibits are hearsay, the exhibits would be admissible under FRE 807. Paper 29, 3–4. To qualify for the residual exception under FRE 807, four requirements must be met: (1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact; (3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and (4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice. FRE 807. Petitioner argues persuasively that the four requirements are met. See Paper 29, 3–4. Regarding (1), circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, Petitioner points out that there “is no dispute regarding their authenticity and both parties and their experts relied on such Internet Archive Captures.” Id. at 3. Regarding (2), Petitioner argues that the statement is evidence of a material fact, namely, what a POSITA would have understood about cellular providers’ peak and off-peak pricing. Id. Regarding (3), Petitioner argues that “there is no better evidence reasonably available that shows these providers’ advertised rate plans at the time.” Id. at 4. Regarding (4), Petitioner argues that admitting these exhibits serves the interest of justice” slip op. at 57

  • BurdenFwd mixedUnpatentable

    “V. CONCLUSION We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) claims 1–6, 9, 11–14, 16–20, 22, 24, and 26 are unpatentable over Ferguson and Kehr; (2) claims 7, 15, 21, 23, and 25 are unpatentable over Ferguson, Kehr, and Yasushi; and (3) claim 8 is unpatentable over Ferguson, Kehr, and Surwit. VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that claims 1–9 and 11–26 of U.S. Patent No. RE43,767 E are unpatentable;” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS RE43,767 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Van Der Hoeven Horticultural Projects B.V. v. Houweling Nurseries Oxnard, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00476 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 29 is unpatentable over Reisinger under § 103; claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable because Reisinger’s ducting is not an end gable and the proposed combination lacked a sufficient rationale.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “and 2 above, the “gabled end” is a region at an end wall of the greenhouse separated from the growing section by a partition. The ’617 patent also explains that “the greenhouse can be arranged without a gabled end,” and provides an example of such an arrangement as one where “the first louver [is] arranged over the fans with the cooling mechanism located at the fans such that ambient air can be pulled directly into the tubes with the air passing the cooling mechanism for additional cooling” and “[p]ipes . . . provide an air passageway between the second vent and the fans during the mode when air from within the crop section is to be recycled.” Ex. 1001, 9:33–41 (emphases added). As noted above, in such arrangements, a direct flow path is provided between first vent 24/first louver 30 to draw ambient air into the system and piping provides a flow path from second vent 34/second louver 36 for air recirculation from growing section 16. We find that “piping,” as used in the ’617 patent, is ducting, as that term is used in the art. Consistent with that finding, Patent Owner’s declarant Mr. Turkewitsch distinguishes ducting from structure such as a plenum or a chamber. See, e.g., Ex. 1031 53:22–55:10. Accordingly, we determine that the alternate example from the ’617 patent noted above discloses use of a ducted system in place of gabled end 14 for air flow. Based on the Specification, therefore, we find that ducting or other piping is not considered an “end gable” in the ’617 patent. As discussed further below, for purposes of this decision, we do not need to determine the precise requirements of the term “end gable” in the claims in order to determine that Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of the claims including that term because we at least determine that, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an “end gable” does not include ducting.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Petitioner contends that Reisinger’s fresh air inlet 2, for example, corresponds to the “one or more vents” and flap 10 corresponds to the “one or more mechanisms selectively moveable to cooperate with said one or more vents to control air flow through said one or more vents.” Pet. 64–65 (referencing discussion of similar limitations in claim 1 discussed on pages 35–40 of the Petition). Petitioner explains that Reisinger’s climate control system also meets the additional limitations directed to operation of the “climate control system” in claim 29. Id. (referencing discussion of similar limitations in claim 1 discussed on pages 40–44 of the Petition). We are persuaded by those contentions, which Patent Owner does not dispute.10 With respect to any requirement that the claim has regarding a roof and sidewalls, generally, we are also persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions in connection with those features. See, e.g., Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 86– 88). Petitioner explains, for example, that “a POSA would have understood Reisinger to disclose them because a greenhouse was known to include a ceiling, and Reisinger’s disclosed function of smoothly adjusting the ratio of fresh air and recirculated air would not work unless the air inlets 1 and 2 were enclosed on the sides.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute those contentions, which, as stated above, we find persuasive.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Reisinger’s greenhouse and climate control system, because . . . Landstrom is in the same field of endeavor as Reisinger,” “there would have been a reasonable and predictable expectation of success to a POSA in combining the teachings of Reisinger and Landstrom to incorporate Landstrom’s end gable chamber into Reisinger,” and “incorporating Landstrom’s end gable chamber into Reisinger’s greenhouse and climate control system including vents, louver and airflow modes does not change the principle of operation of either component.” Id. at 79–81. Patent Owner disputes whether Landstrom teaches an “end gable” or an “end portion,” and contends that Petitioner has failed to establish that one skilled in the art would have combined Landstrom’s teachings asserted by Petitioner in connection with those features with Reisinger. PO Resp. 66– 72, 74–75. Even accepting Petitioner’s contentions that Landstrom teaches an “end gable” and an “end portion” as required by the claims, Petitioner has failed to establish sufficiently that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include those features from Landstrom in Reisinger’s system. Sufficient rationale for combing features from multiple references requires more than those references merely being in the same field of endeavor and that the combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success and not change the principle of operation. See Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention”). We are lacking any, let alone sufficient, rationale from Petitioner in this proceeding.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “obviousness in Patent Owner’s Response fails to address any relation of the claim elements, or even any particular claim, to that evidence. See PO Resp. 76–80. Nevertheless, even if we were to assume some nexus, that nexus appears to be between Patent Owner’s evidence and the features of claims 1 and 17, rather than those of claim 29. For example, in its discussion of copying, Patent Owner asserts “the ModulAir design has the same ‘corridor’ (or ‘end gable’) design as that of the Ultra Clima®.” Id. at 78. As noted above, claim 29 recites an “end portion,” rather than the “end gable” recited in claims 1 and 17. Moreover, Patent Owner presents evidence of similar designs, rather than actual copying. See, e.g., id. (“the designs are almost identical”). “[C]opying requires the replication of a specific product.” Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). That products are similar is not persuasive evidence of copying. See Iron Grip, 392 F.3d at 1325 (“Not every competing product that arguably falls within the scope of a patent is evidence of copying. Otherwise every infringement suit would automatically confirm the nonobviousness of the patent.”). With respect to industry praise, we note that evidence, too, is only relevant when it is directed to the merits of the invention claimed. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner fails to provide any connection between the particular features of claim 29 and the alleged industry praise. Nevertheless, even if we were to assume sufficient nexus had been established by Patent Owner, when we weigh all of the evidence, for and against patentability, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of unpatentability of claim 29. As explained above, we are persuaded that Reisinger, itself, in a single embodiment, teaches each of the features found in claim 29, other than expressly describing a roof and sidewalls. As also explained above, however, we are persuaded that one skilled in the art would readily appreciate that greenhouses include a roof and sidewalls, which Patent Owner does not dispute. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,707,617 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,707,617
• Nike Inc. v. Jezign Licensing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2018 · IPR2017-00246 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Shkalim and Chiaramonte; claim 3 is unpatentable over Shkalim and Powell, Chien and Powell, and Chiaramonte and Powell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner misapprehends Petitioner’s proposed construction for “sole,” and the Board’s initial adoption thereof. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, we understand that Petitioner does not assert “sole” to mean “heel,” or is otherwise synonymous with “heel.” See Pet. 12–14. Also contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the Board merely stated: “[t]he ’590 patent does not define the term ‘sole’ or disavow the heel portion of the athletic shoe as being part of the sole,” and that “Patent Owner fails to address the disclosures in the ’590 patent or explain why the record as a whole, including the intrinsic evidence, requires a narrower construction of the term ‘sole.’” Dec. 9–10. We reiterate that the ’590 Patent (to include the incorporated ’586 Patent) does not include a lexicographical definition that specifies that the heel is distinct from the sole. Further, as detailed below, the ordinary meaning of the heel being a portion of the sole is consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner asserts “[a] person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’590 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in footwear, apparel, or industrial design or an equivalent field and 1–3 years of work experience in footwear, apparel, or industrial design, or a high school education with 2-4 years of work experience in footwear, apparel, or industrial design.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 1–23. We adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 17

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

    “b. Analysis of Claims 1 and 2 Petitioner contends that Shkalim discloses “[a]n illuminated shoe comprising: an upper; a sole attached to said upper, the sole including a translucent perimeter surface,” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 21–23. Petitioner bases it contention on Shkalim’s disclosures in Figures 1, 2, and 7 of a sole attached to the upper, Shkalim’s disclosure of a transparent housing or cover 3 containing lighting elements inserted into channel 15 that runs along substantially the whole sole of the shoe, and Shkalim’s disclosure that the connection between the cover and the material of heel and sole can be effected by incorporating the plastic material of cover 3 into the material of the heel. See id. (citing Ex. 1003, [57], 1:1–2, 1:5–10, 1:40–53, 3:6–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62, 63, 65). We find that Shkalim discloses “a light source disposed within said sole,” as recited in claim 1, based on Shkalim’s disclosure of lighting elements 4 in transparent housing or cover 3, and channel 15 in the sole or heel to which housing or cover 3 may be inserted.7 See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003, 3:6–50, 4:5–9, Figs. 1(b), 2, 2(a), (b), 3, 5; Ex. 1002 ¶ 66. Petitioner contends Shkalim discloses “a push-button switch coupled to the light source to activate the light source such that the light source provides continuous illumination across a substantial portion of the perimeter surface, regardless of whether the wearer is standing still or walking,” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 24–26. Petitioner bases its contention on Shkalim’s disclosure in Figure 1 of on-off switch 2 that lights lighting elements 4 contained in transparent housing or cover 3, and rechargeable battery 8 connected to lighting elements 4 and switch 2. See id. (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 2(a), 2(b), 3, 4, 2:24–26, 3:6–10, 3:34–40, 3:55–4:4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). We agree with Petitioner and find that Shkalim’s disclosures of transparent cover 3 containing lighting elements 4 in the channel 15 of sole, which runs along substantially the whole sole of the 7 Here, and through our analysis, we note that our Scheduling Order cautions Patent Owner “that any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner’s Response] will be deemed waived.” See Paper 13, 5; see also See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016). shoe, meets the claims limitation of “the lighting elements provide illumination across a substantial portion of the perimeter surface” of the sole. See Pet. 25; Ex. 1003, 2:24–30, 3:15–25, 3:41–45, Fig. 3. Petitioner further contends Shkalim’s switch 2 allows the user to turn” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine the illuminated nameplate on the sole of the Powell shoe with the illuminated sole of the Shkalim shoe” to arrive at the sole required by claim 3. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 85). More specifically, Petitioner asserts combining the features of Shkalim and Powell “would have required nothing more than the application of ordinary skill, and would have been the simple substitution of one known element (a sole with a continuously illuminated translucent region) with another (a sole with translucent regions arranged to spell a word) with nothing more than predictable results.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). Petitioner further contends “[i]t would have been simple to modify the translucent portion of Shkalim so as to create translucent letters to form a word.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89; Ex. 1006, 2:24–27). Petitioner asserts that it was known in the prior art, including Shkalim and Powell, to add lights to shoes to enhance aesthetic appeal and appearance. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:1–5, Ex. 1006, 1:31–35; Ex. 1014, 2:10–15; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90–92). Petitioner relies on Mr. Rake to support its position. Mr. Rake generally testifies that during the late 1990s, ordinary artisans in the field of apparel design recognized the rise in consumer demand for personalized apparel and that this era of increased attention on personalization would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporated Powell’s name plate into the light-up athletic shoes disclosed by Shkalim. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–95 (citing Exs. 1015, 1016). Petitioner then argues, [g]iven the similarities in the structure and function between Powell and Shkalim, as well as their aesthetic objectives and the robust consumer demand for personalized goods, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate into Shkalim the translucent regions being formed in the shape of alpha numeric characters and being arranged to spell a word of Powell. Pet. 35; Ex. 1002 ¶ 89 (Petitioner’s declarant Mr. Rake stating the same). On the foregoing bases, we agree with Petitioner that the combination” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 6,837,590 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,837,590
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00949 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 15–18, and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–12, 15–17, 19, and 20 as anticipated by Tosaki; claims 1–12, 15–18, and 20 as obvious over Enright and Tosaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “This Motion has no meaningful distinction from the Motion filed in IPR2016-00948, and we incorporate that analysis here. Consequently, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is that the ’770 patent expresses a clear intent to disavow controllers having a recessed portion that does not receive a user’s fingers. See PO Resp. 17–22. Stated in a positive sense, Patent Owner argues that the ’770 patent expresses a clear intent to cover only recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. Patent Owner does not identify, nor do we discern, any explicit disclosure in the ’770 patent that the invention includes only recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. The description that “preferably” each elongate member is mounted in a recess such that a user’s fingers may be received in the recess is an exemplary disclosure of a preferred embodiment. See Ex. 1011, 1:62–67. Likewise, the disclosures that the elongate members (e.g., paddles 11) are mounted within recesses so that a user may engage the elongate members with the tips of the fingers are exemplary. See Ex. 1011, 2:21–25, 3:39–44, Fig. 3. Consequently, the ’770 patent does not express a clear intent to limit the claimed invention to recessed portions that receive a user’s fingers. See e.g., SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed.Cir. 2001); see also Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (“Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.”). In light of the disclosures above, the ordinary meaning that a recessed portion is an indentation is consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 9–10) that nothing in claim 1 precludes the back of Tosaki’s steering wheel 14 from corresponding to the back of the controller as claimed. Claim 1 is an open-ended claim, so that additional components like base casing 10 with its bottom plate 11 are not precluded. Patent Owner’s assertion is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. c) Conclusion Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Tosaki anticipates independent claim 1.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We accept Patent Owner’s uncontested assertions regarding the education level of the inventors; however, this information provides an incomplete picture because other factors are involved. See e.g. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (enumerating a non-exhaustive list of six factors that are a guide to determining the level of skill in the art). For example, one concern is the type of problems encountered in the art, and the problem solved by the ’770 patent is but one type of problem encountered. Tosaki describes that removing a hand from the controller to manipulate switches makes prompt reaction difficult and degrades usability, and describing that repositioning the user’s hands can affect comfort. Ex. 1002, 1:54–67, 2:19–23. Tosaki describes an apparatus that permits manipulation of a plurality of switches while holding the controller. Id. at 3:20–23. Tosaki’s solution also includes switches on the back of the controller (shift levers) that are accessible to a user’s fingers. Id. at 3:36–4:8. Enright describes that controller had become more complex in that the number of functions and user input devices increased to the point that user’s had difficulty moving a finger to a desired button. Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. Enright describes that movement between input devices can be difficult. Id. at ¶¶ 3–4. As a solution, Enright disclosed a device that permits selection of discrete button commands without looking at or moving fingers from buttons. Id. ¶ 5. Enright’s solution includes switches (mode switches 32, 34) added to the underside (back) of the controller to reside near a user’s fingers for easy operation. Id. at ¶ 32. Enright also discloses that these switches may be located elsewhere is ergonomically desired. Id. In light of this, the prior art of record demonstrates that switch position on the controller, usability, and comfort were known problems in the art. Further, prior solutions included placing switches to be easily accessible to a user’s finger or thumb, and placing switches so that those switches are accessible without removing a finger or thumb from another switch. In particular, these solutions placed controls on the back of the controller to be accessible to a user’s fingers. The technology involved was placement of switches in ergonomically desired locations that permit usability.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,089,770 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,089,770
• Valve Corporation v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00948 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable: Tosaki anticipates them, and Enright with Tosaki also renders claim 20 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In our Decision to Institute, we explained that a preliminary response cannot serve as an effective objection for two reasons.2 Dec. 4–5 (entered on September 27, 2016). First, objections must be made after institution of trial. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (objections are due ten days from institution of trial). Second, an objection and a preliminary response may not be combined into a single document. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (prohibiting combined documents).” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “The Petition fails to address a claimed characteristic of the elongate members (flexibility). See PO Resp. 39–41 (arguing that Enright does not disclose elongate members that are flexible as claimed). This cannot be corrected in Petitioner’s Reply. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (a reply may not raise a new issue or belatedly present evidence); 35 U.S.C. § 312 (a)(3) (requiring petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (a petition for inter partes review must identify how the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds on which the petitioner challenges the claim and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Paper 39, 2 (pointing out that Petitioner is making a new argument).20 Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Enright and Tosaki. The same is true of claims 2–11, 13, 16, and 17 by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. 20 Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s contention could not have been addressed earlier because the Board did not explicitly construe this claim limitation. Petitioner’s burden is not alleviated by the lack of a claim construction by the Board.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “In our Institution Decision, we observed that the Petition does not explain persuasively how observations from a UK patent examiner, which presumably are based on UK law and not United States law, are of use in our proceeding. Dec. 4. Petitioner asserts that Mr. Donohoe must be a person of ordinary skill because the level of ordinary skill is low, and because the UK Intellectual Property Office employed Mr. Donohoe to examine the video game controller art. Pet. Reply 16–17. Petitioner chose not to address our concern regarding the distinctions between United States and UK law. Because of those distinctions, Petitioner’s assertions and evidence with regard to Mr. Donohoe are entitled to little or no weight. This shortcoming is not fatal to this ground of unpatentability because, as explained below, the prior art of record is reflective of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 39

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that the level of skill in the art is relatively low and that “less than a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling is required.” PO Resp. 34; Ex. 2002 ¶ 30 (Patent Owner’s expert opining that the level of skill is “no more than a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling”). Patent Owner bases this level of skill on the education level of the inventor and the type of problems encountered in the art. PO Resp. 35. Regarding the education level of the inventors, Patent Owner provides evidence that the named inventors have degrees in unrelated fields. Id. (citing Ex. 2008, 3; Ex. 2009, 4). Patent Owner asserts the problem solved was that users of conventional game controllers were at risk of hand strain or injury from having to operate many different controls on the front of the controller with only a user’s thumbs. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 10; Ex. 1001, 1:33–40, 3:56–61). Petitioner does not contest the education level of the inventors or the problem solved by the ’525 patent. Pet. Reply 15–16. Rather, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has taken the illogical position that the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art are maximum levels of experience or training rather than minimums. Id. To the extent that Patent Owner’s assertion suggests that the level of skill may not exceed a year of experience or other training in controller assembly or tooling, we disagree. Patent Owner does not cite, nor are we aware, of any legal precedent supporting the assertion that education and experience levels are maximums that must not be exceeded. Regarding the problem solved by the ’525 patent, the portions cited by” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,641,525 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,641,525
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00263 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–49 are unpatentable as obvious over the Dietzen-led grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “adapted to” This term appears in claims 11, 17–19, and 30–49. Petitioner proposes “adapted to” means “capable of.” Pet. ’262, 10; Pet. ’263, 10. We agree, insofar as these limitations require structure to have qualities or features allowing it to meet the claim language. For example, claim 17 would require a vessel that actually can “withstand a pressure of about 4 bar to about 8 bar.” In other words, the “adapted to” language distinguishes from those structures that are not physically capable of meeting the limitation. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. ’262, 17–19; PO Resp. ’263, 16–19. Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments, however, is not clear to us what Patent Owner disputes to be the effective difference. We determine that no explicit construction of “adapted to” is necessary.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s initial construction, now abandoned, was too broad. Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved. However, Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which would require a gravity test, is not supported by the ’062 patent. Instead, we effectively adopt a combination of Patent Owner’s proposed construction and Petitioner’s, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. “means for transporting” This term appears in claims 39, 40, 46, and 47. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transporting [the] pressure vessel to a discharge station” and corresponding structure of “a ship, crane, and road vehicle.” Pet. ’263, 12 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction. PO Resp. ’263, 20 (using the term “boat” instead of “ship”). The constructions are effectively identical. Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. 4. “means for transferring” This term appears in claims 44 and 45. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transferring the nonfree flowing drill cuttings from a second vessel to a third vessel” and corresponding structure of “a conduit, pipe, or flexible hose.” Pet. ’263, 12– 13 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction, but with more exemplary corresponding structures. PO Resp. ’263, 21 (also including “compressed gas[/air],” “a connector,” and “a hose”). Petitioner’s Reply does not discuss the construction of “means for transferring.” Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is a slightly broader reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “The original claims of the ’217 patent were rejected as anticipated by Curtis, which had pulsed-jet aerators in the cone of the pressure vessel. Ex. 2017, 232, 3:7–11, 6:59–64. After a telephone interview, during which the Examiner and Patent Owner “[d]iscussed [a] proposed amendment” (id. at 284), the Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment adding that the conveyance gas was “the sole means for inducing movement [of the material]” (see, e.g., id. at 322). The Examiner set forth the scope of the “sole means” limitation: “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” Id. Amending the claims to include the “sole means” limitation, along with the Examiner’s accompanying explanation of its scope, are clearly and unmistakably the reasons for issuance of the ’217 patent. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prosecution history “provides evidence of how the [PTO] and the inventor understood the patent” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (alteration in original)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,186,062 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,186,062
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00262 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–49 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 11 is not unpatentable because the obviousness grounds did not establish its ISO-frame limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “adapted to” This term appears in claims 11, 17–19, and 30–49. Petitioner proposes “adapted to” means “capable of.” Pet. ’262, 10; Pet. ’263, 10. We agree, insofar as these limitations require structure to have qualities or features allowing it to meet the claim language. For example, claim 17 would require a vessel that actually can “withstand a pressure of about 4 bar to about 8 bar.” In other words, the “adapted to” language distinguishes from those structures that are not physically capable of meeting the limitation. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. ’262, 17–19; PO Resp. ’263, 16–19. Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments, however, is not clear to us what Patent Owner disputes to be the effective difference. We determine that no explicit construction of “adapted to” is necessary.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s initial construction, now abandoned, was too broad. Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved. However, Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which would require a gravity test, is not supported by the ’062 patent. Instead, we effectively adopt a combination of Patent Owner’s proposed construction and Petitioner’s, for the reasons explained below. The ’062 patent describes the material conveyed therein in several different ways, but it is always referring to the same material. The labels that the ’062 patent gives to this material are: “thick heavy paste” (Ex. 1004, 1:29, 1:46–47, 1:64, 2:1, 3:11), “drill cuttings” (id. at 1:65, 2:12; see also id. at 1:45 (simply, “cuttings”)), “non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:7–8, 11), and “thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material” (id. at 2:11–12). These labels are often equated to one another: “cuttings . . . in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:45–47), “thick heavy paste . . . e.g. drill cuttings” (id. at 1:64–65), “non-free flowing paste . . . e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:11–12). As such, the ’062 patent considers screened drill cuttings to be a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. The ’062 patent does not discuss “non-free flowing drill cuttings,” or relate it to gravity. However, given that the ’062 patent considers “drill cuttings” to be “non-free flowing paste,” the “drill cuttings” are already “non-free flowing” according to the ’062 patent. Thus, when the claims add “non-free flowing” to “drill cuttings,” we find that they do not provide a further limitation, but rather just provide an extra description that a person of ordinary skill in the art would already understand is present if they were to read the specification. The ’062 patent is simply providing many ways to describe the same thing. There is no persuasive evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “non-free flowing” to otherwise be a term of art. Indeed, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Brown, points to the exact same physical material samples to provide examples of “drill cuttings,” “non-free flowing paste,” and “non-free flowing drill cuttings.” Compare Ex. 2014 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2056 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2059 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2060 ¶ 53 (each using the same picture to describe the material).18” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other

    “3. “means for transporting” This term appears in claims 39, 40, 46, and 47. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transporting [the] pressure vessel to a discharge station” and corresponding structure of “a ship, crane, and road vehicle.” Pet. ’263, 12 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction. PO Resp. ’263, 20 (using the term “boat” instead of “ship”). The constructions are effectively identical. Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. 4. “means for transferring” This term appears in claims 44 and 45. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transferring the nonfree flowing drill cuttings from a second vessel to a third vessel” and corresponding structure of “a conduit, pipe, or flexible hose.” Pet. ’263, 12– 13 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction, but with more exemplary corresponding structures. PO Resp. ’263, 21 (also including “compressed gas[/air],” “a connector,” and “a hose”). Petitioner’s Reply does not discuss the construction of “means for transferring.” Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is a slightly broader reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “The original claims of the ’217 patent were rejected as anticipated by Curtis, which had pulsed-jet aerators in the cone of the pressure vessel. Ex. 2017, 232, 3:7–11, 6:59–64. After a telephone interview, during which the Examiner and Patent Owner “[d]iscussed [a] proposed amendment” (id. at 284), the Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment adding that the conveyance gas was “the sole means for inducing movement [of the material]” (see, e.g., id. at 322). The Examiner set forth the scope of the “sole means” limitation: “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” Id. Amending the claims to include the “sole means” limitation, along with the Examiner’s accompanying explanation of its scope, are clearly and unmistakably the reasons for issuance of the ’217 patent. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prosecution history “provides evidence of how the [PTO] and the inventor understood the patent” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (alteration in original)). The application that was issued as the ’062 patent is a direct continuation of the application that issued as the ’217 patent. The claims in the ’062 patent application did not have the “sole means” limitation required by the Examiner for allowance of the ’217 patent. Instead, the claims included the “without employing non-pneumatic means” limitation. The ’062 patent application received an obviousness-type double patenting rejection in the first Office Action, where the Examiner stated “[a]lthough the [claims in the ’217 patent and the present application] are not identical, they are not patently distinct from each other because the instant apparatus claim(s) are too close in scope with the patented method claim(s).” Ex. 2019, 629. Patent Owner did not traverse that rejection and filed a terminal disclaimer; the claims were thereafter allowed. Our understanding of the prosecution history of the ’062 patent is that the Examiner did not consider the “without employing” limitation to be meaningfully broader than the “sole means” limitation, or the Examiner would have re-instated the Curtis rejection. Instead, the Examiner stated the claims were “not patently distinct.” Ex. 2019, 629. In other words, the Examiner considered the claims in the ’062 patent to also have “precluded” “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent.” Ex. 2017, 322. Patent Owner acquiesced to the Examiner’s statement that the claims are not patentably distinct by not traversing the double patenting rejection and filing a terminal disclaimer to secure allowance of the claims. Ex. 2019, 651 (“please find enclosed a TERMINAL DISCLAIMER in response to the double patenting rejection”). See Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1097 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (disclaimer arose where the applicants “let[ ] stand an examiner’s narrow characterization of a claim term” and “adopt[ed] ... that characterization to overcome the examiner’s ... rejection”); TorPharm Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“Whether the patentee chooses to dispute the examiner’s view of matters is relevant to claim interpretation, for there a court may need to ascertain exactly what subject matter was actually examined and allowed by the PTO.”). Thus, the prosecution history of the ’062 patent simply continues the prosecution history of the ’217 patent, and leaves intact the Examiner’s and Patent Owner’s understanding regarding the scope of the amendment responsible for allowance. Accordingly, we construe the “without employing” limitation the same as the “sole means” limitation of the ’217 patent: heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,186,062 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,186,062
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00259 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, Pneumatic Conveying, and Toth; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is unreasonably high, and we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of our Final Written Decision. While Petitioner’s definition requires five years of design experience at the bachelor’s degree level of education, Patent Owner’s definition does not require any design experience at all. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art designs devices, and, thus, actively monitors the relevant technical literature, rather than is merely familiar with devices (e.g., an operator or a manufacturer), as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 28; Ex. 1005, 2:62–64 (indicating that those skilled in the art would understand “that the critical cone angle will vary depending upon the material being conveyed”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposal to construe “non-free flowing drill cuttings” as drill cuttings that do not generally flow freely by gravitational force. There is insufficient support in the Specification for that proposal. The Specification does not distinguish between different types of screened drill cuttings, for example, screened drill cuttings that generally flow freely by gravitational force and those that do not. While the Specification describes screened drill cuttings in various ways, it is always referring to the same material. For example, the Specification refers explicitly to “thick, heavy pastes which are normally difficult to move and 12 See Ex 1005, 1:37–39 (calling drilling fluid a special type of oil used as a lubricant.) handle” (Ex. 1005, 1:31–32), “[screened] cuttings . . . transported ashore in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:44–48), “thick heavy paste material (e.g., drill cuttings)” (id. at 1:66–67), “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 2:3), “a non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:9–10), “[t]he non-free flowing paste may be a thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material, e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:13–14), and “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 3:10–11). As such, the Specification characterizes screened drill cuttings as a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of “non-free flowing drill cuttings” is “screened drill cuttings, i.e., screened material, generated by the drilling of an oil well, including a mixture of earth and drilling fluid or oil.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not respond adequately to Petitioner’s persuasive obviousness rationale that a POSITA would have substituted a positive-pressure conveyance system in place of the negative-pressure conveyance system of Dietzen I and II because negative pressure systems are generally limited to shorter distances and lower material volumes than positive systems. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments do not address sufficiently Ciaffone’s teaching that a positive-pressure vessel with a conical bottom section can be used to convey materials without the need for bins, hoppers, hydraulic rams, screw feeders, conveyor belts, and the like. See Ex. 1006, 1:70–2:6. As explained by Petitioner, Dietzen II uses an auger to augment use of negative pressure for moving settled materials horizontally from the bottom of a vessel. Pet. Reply 15; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 154:6–155:5. In contrast with Dietzen II’s relatively low-pressure vacuum system, a positive- pressure system such as taught by Ciaffone, with an operating pressure of up to 6.89 bar, blows materials out of the conical bottom section of the vessel. See supra Section II.C.1.b. Patent Owner further argues that a “POSITA would have discounted positive pressure given th[at] non-free flowing drill cuttings cannot be fragmented.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2057 ¶¶ 44, 150). We find this argument unpersuasive because Ciaffone’s blow vessel does not require fragmentation of the material to be conveyed. Rather, Ciaffone teaches compaction of the material in a tightly knit unit that can be acted upon by the full force of the pressurized air, in contrast with dispersion of the waste such that air is diffused among the separated particles resulting in diminution in the applied air pressure conveying the total charge. Ex. 1006, 3:11–19. Further, Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “small capacity blow vessels are designed on the basis of conveying material as a series of discrete plugs rather than as a continuous stream.” Ex. 1009, 282, Fig. 7.32. Pneumatic Conveying further explains: “As such, the capacity of the vessel is selected such that on discharge a plug is formed which is just long enough to prevent blocking [of the conveying line].” Id. Pneumatic Conveying discloses that “[i]f the material to be conveyed is unusually cohesive, a plug forming system will yield good results” and, “[a]s the plugs are relatively impermeable, they remain separated even over long conveying distances.” Id. at 346. Based on these teachings, a POSITA would not have understood that it was necessary to fragment non-free flowing drill cuttings, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument. For the reasons given, Petitioner has provided a sufficient reason with rational underpinning for combining Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, and Pneumatic Conveying. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Pneumatic Conveying does not provide information on “anything close to ‘non-free flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings’ or a ‘thick, heavy paste,’” and, thus, a POSITA “would not look to designs presented in Pneumatic Conveying.” Ex. 2057 ¶ 185. We give little weight to this testimony because, as discussed above, we credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying identifies hundreds of materials, including paste and cohesive material. See supra Section II.C.1.e(2). We also credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying explains that pressure vessels increasingly were being used to convey materials with “bad” flow properties, and that “Pneumatic Conveying would have also shown those of ordinary skill in the art that pneumatic conveying with a positive pressure system would be an effective way to transport non-free flowing drill cuttings, including in the form of a paste or sludge.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 124. Dr. Brown also testifies that the information in Pneumatic Conveying with respect to mass flow concerns granular solids. Ex. 2057 ¶ 185 (citing Ex. 1009, 411). He further testifies that because “the flow behavior of nonfree flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings is distinct from that of granular solids . . . a person of ordinary skill in the art would gain no insight in designing a vessel for paste to produce mass flow from a vessel designed to contain granular solids.” Id. We give little weight to this testimony because Dr. Brown does not address all of the information in Pneumatic Conveying that is relevant to mass flow, as discussed further below. In contrast with Dr. Brown, Dr. Carson testifies: “As explained in Pneumatic Conveying, those of ordinary skill in the art knew that the cone angle is an important variable to adjust in order to achieve mass flow.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1009, 280–282, 410–420; Ex. 1046, 68–74, 147– 151). Consistent with Dr. Carson’s testimony, the ’018 Patent discloses that “[i]t is well known that the critical cone angle [to achieve mass flow] will vary depending upon the material being conveyed [and] as such would be well understood by those skilled in the art.” Ex. 1005, 2:61–63. We credit the testimony of Dr. Carson over the conflicting testimony of Dr. Brown because Dr. Carson’s testimony addresses the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is consistent with that disclosure, while Dr. Brown’s testimony does not address the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is not completely consistent with that disclosure. For example, under the subheading “Factors influencing blow vessel performance,” Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “[t]he increased use of blow vessels for feeding materials with ‘bad’ flow properties necessitates the selection of a suitable cone angle.” Ex. 1009, 279. Pneumatic Conveying further explains that “[v]essels with incorrectly designed cone angles will result in either ‘ratholing’ or ‘bridging’ problems.” Id. at 279, Fig. 7.30. These teachings of Pneumatic Conveying are not limited to granular solids, contrary to Dr. Brown’s testimony.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,544,018 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,544,018
• Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00256 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable under § 103 over Dietzen I, Ciaffone, Laster, Dietzen II, and Pneumatic Conveying; the Board did not reach the other ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to look to positive pressure conveyance vessels to replace the negative pressure conveyance vessels in Dietzen I and II. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, but do not find them persuasive. See PO Resp. 43–49. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to provide any motivation as to why the POSITA would consider pneumatic conveyance nor why the POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. at 45. We disagree, because Petitioner has shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that positive pressure systems are stronger than negative pressure systems. Ex. 1030 ¶ 131; Ex. 1015, 27. If one is conveying difficult to handle materials, it makes sense to consider stronger conveying systems. Indeed, Dietzen II suggests using positive pressure “to assist the flow of cuttings” already in the tubes; the implication is that if the negative pressure is not strong enough, the positive pressure would be. Ex. 1013, 5:14–16. Thus, there is a reason to combine with some rational underpinnings. In addition, Petitioner has shown a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, Dietzen I and II already convey drill cuttings through tubes using negative pressure. Patent Owner attempts to characterize the auger of Dietzen II as the means for conveying the drill cuttings, but fails to address the fact that there are vacuums that are described as conveying materials through the tubes. We acknowledge that there is an auger, but as shown in Dietzen II, we find the purpose of the auger is to convey the material from the bottom of a horizontal tank to the suction tube, where it is then suctioned along the tube; there is no auger in the tube to convey the material and, in any event, the proposed combination uses a positive pressure vessel and would not incorporate Dietzen II’s auger. As to Dietzen I, there is no auger; the drill cuttings are suctioned from the bottom of a trough into the storage tank where they are left without further transfer. Positive pressure pneumatic conveyance systems are known to convey difficult-to-handle materials. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 1:18–32 (describing difficult materials to convey), 1:70–75 (“[w]e have now surprisingly found that it is possible to use air pressure to pneumatically convey [such] materials”); Ex. 1008, 21 (“conveying ‘clays . . . coupled with high-moisture contents [that] form a sticky, difficult-to-handle material’”); Ex. 1009, 279 (describing the design parameters of positive pressure vessels used “for feeding materials with ‘bad’ flow properties”); Ex. 1014, 1:11–29 (discussing the difficulty in pumping “thick viscous fluid known as drilling mud”), 2:25–31 (conveying that material with sufficient pressurized air). Given that Dietzen I and Dietzen II convey drill cuttings using their weaker negative pressure system, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that there would be a reasonable expectation of success using a stronger positive pressure system.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “along with at least 5 years of experience in the design of systems for the handling of bulk solid and fluid materials, including through the use of pneumatic conveyance.” Pet. 12; see also id. (allowing for fewer years of experience with an advanced degree); Ex. 1030 ¶ 27. Patent Owner proposes a lower level of skill, “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, at least two years of experience with systems that convey materials, and [knowledge of] the flow and behavior of granular solids, slurries, and pastes.” PO Resp. 4; see also id. (allowing for fewer years of experience with an advanced degree). Although both parties agree that the level of ordinary skill involves a bachelor’s degree and familiarity with similar subject matter, Petitioner proposes experience in the design of systems, whereas Patent Owner merely proposes experience with the systems themselves. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art designs devices, rather than is merely familiar with them (e.g., an operator or a manufacturer), as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1030 ¶ 27; Ex. 1004, 2:57–59 (indicating that those skilled in the art would understand “that the critical cone angle will vary depending upon the material being conveyed”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that “drill cuttings” would not include mixtures of liquid and earth extracted material that did not come from the drilling of an oil well. In other words, drill cuttings as claimed are limited to material from the drilling of an oil well. A problem with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, is that it is missing the “screened” aspect of Petitioner’s proposed construction. From the context of the specification, the ’539 patent considers “drill cuttings” to have been screened. The cuttings from the drilling process are brought up to the rig and then some” slip op. at 8

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

    “Reviewing Petitioner’s assertions and evidence above, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to look to positive pressure conveyance vessels to replace the negative pressure conveyance vessels in Dietzen I and II. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, but do not find them persuasive. See PO Resp. 43–49. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner fails to provide any motivation as to why the POSITA would consider pneumatic conveyance nor why the POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. at 45. We disagree, because Petitioner has shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that positive pressure systems are stronger than negative pressure systems. Ex. 1030 ¶ 131; Ex. 1015, 27. If one is conveying difficult to handle materials, it makes sense to consider stronger conveying systems. Indeed, Dietzen II suggests using positive pressure “to assist the flow of cuttings” already in the tubes; the implication is that if the negative pressure is not strong enough, the positive pressure would be. Ex. 1013, 5:14–16. Thus, there is a reason to combine with some rational underpinnings. In addition, Petitioner has shown a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, Dietzen I and II already convey drill cuttings through tubes using negative pressure. Patent Owner attempts to characterize the auger of Dietzen II as the means for conveying the drill cuttings, but fails to address the fact that there are vacuums that are described as conveying materials through the tubes. We acknowledge that there is an auger, but as shown in Dietzen II, we find the purpose of the auger is to convey the material from the bottom of a horizontal tank to the suction tube, where it is then suctioned along the tube; there is no auger in the tube to convey the material and, in any event, the proposed combination uses a positive pressure vessel and would not incorporate Dietzen II’s auger. As to Dietzen I, there is no auger; the drill cuttings are suctioned from the bottom of a trough into the storage tank where they are left without further transfer. Positive pressure pneumatic conveyance systems are known to convey difficult-to-handle materials. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 1:18–32 (describing difficult materials to convey), 1:70–75 (“[w]e have now surprisingly found that it is possible to use air pressure to pneumatically convey [such] materials”); Ex. 1008, 21 (“conveying ‘clays . . . coupled with high-moisture contents [that] form a sticky, difficult-to-handle material’”); Ex. 1009, 279 (describing the design parameters of positive pressure vessels used “for feeding materials with ‘bad’ flow properties”); Ex. 1014, 1:11–29 (discussing the difficulty in pumping “thick viscous fluid known as drilling mud”), 2:25–31 (conveying that material with sufficient pressurized air). Given that Dietzen I and Dietzen II convey drill cuttings using their weaker negative pressure system, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that there would be a reasonable expectation of success using a stronger positive pressure system.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,702,539 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,702,539

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.