• Precision Planting LLC / Agco Corporation v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01048 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not proven unpatentable over Hedderwick and Koning because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine the references as proposed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the prior art, Dr. Glancey’s opinion testimony and analysis, and providing some, but minimal, weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion testimony, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in a technology pertinent to the challenged claims would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. A recipient of other academic degrees may qualify as a person of ordinary skill if they have taken coursework or have experience in the pertinent technology. Additional education could offset less work experience; additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of determining whether the challenged claims are not patentable. slip op. at 20

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

    “sufficiently persuasive evidence, even in combination, to establish why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hedderwick by (1) selectively gleaning only a portion of Koning’s conveying system, i.e., belt 44 with bristles 45, (2) selectively excluding Koning’s belt 23, and then (3) modifying Koning’s brush belt by reversing its orientation so that it carries seeds deposited into the bristles, as in the ’906 patent, rather than covering and guiding seeds carried by a separate and distinct conveyor belt, as in Koning. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an absence of a motivation to reverse parts to an orientation that was “totally backwards” from what one of skill in the art would even attempt). Petitioner’s arguments do not acknowledge the different function of Koning’s brush belt, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt Koning’s brush belt to such a use and reasonably expect success in doing so. We determine Petitioner fails to meet its burden of providing a sufficiently persuasive explanation or reason for concluding that one of skill in the art would have combined these particular references to produce the claimed invention. “Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias.” Metalcraft v. Toro, 848 F.3d at 1367. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” Id.” slip op. at 30

  • ExcludeOther

    “II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner and Patent Owner each move to exclude a substantial number of exhibits on a number of different evidentiary grounds. See Pet. Mot. Excl.; PO Mot. Exclude. As our analysis does not refer to any of those exhibits, we dismiss each motion as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,686,906 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,686,906
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31

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

    “way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,813,663
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · PGR2017-00015 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4 not unpatentable: the obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed elastic fastener limitation, and claim 3 was not shown indefinite or lacking written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about, and experience with, expandable containers, including, without limitation, balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent. This level of skill is consistent with the types of problems and solutions described in the ’612 patent and cited prior art. For example, the ’612 patent describes a fluid inflatable system that uses elastic valve 20A (e.g., mechanical gasket, O-ring, etc.) for sealing fluid inside multiple containers (e.g., water balloons). See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 3:10–16. In any event, none of the issues in this case turn on the definition of a POSA, and the prior art of record provides ample evidence of the level of skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”’) (internal citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “1. Terms Construed in the Institution Decision We construed the term “elastic fastener” in our Decision on Institution, which is set forth in the following table. Inst. Dec. 14. Claim Term Construction in Institution Decision elastic fastener “an elastic element for attaching things together” Neither party disputes the language of this construction. See generally Prelim Resp. 17; Reply. We adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Rodale Press, Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968)) (“‘an agency may not change theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change’ and ‘the opportunity to present argument under the new theory.’”)” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “While the terms “unfilled state” and “filled state” describe the fullness for a container, we do not agree with Petitioner that the claim language requires determining the precise amount of fluid for each state. Section 112(b) requires that we read claim terms in the context of the surrounding claim language, not in isolation. Telebrands, 733 F. App’x at 1020. When we look at the entire claim phrase—“regardless whether the first and second ones of the plurality of containers are in a filled state or an unfilled state”— the plain language is clear that regardless of whether the balloons are in either state, the “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other.” In other words, the exact volume of fluid or water needed to reach a “filled state” does not need to be determined in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. We are further persuaded because this is consistent with the district court’s construction of this term. See Ex. 1023, 19–20.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “Based upon our review of the specification, and consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, Petitioner’s position is not persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that the ’612 patent does not provide such adequate guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art. On its face, Figure 1 of the ’612 patent (reproduced below) shows containers 18 in contact or pressing against one another with the reasonable clarity required by Vas–Cath Inc. Figure 1 of the ’612 patent is reproduced above. Although the ’612 patent describes, as Petitioner notes, that tubes 16 can be different lengths, we are not persuaded that the ’612 patent’s disclosure of an embodiment with different tube lengths detracts from the concurrent disclosure in Figure 1 of an embodiment, where it is difficult to describe containers 18 as being not in contact with each other. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the ’612 patent as describing the containers in Figure 1 as pressing against one another in an unfilled state. The ’612 patent indicates Figure 1 shows elastic valve 20A in an open configuration when container 18A is attached to tube 16A to allow container 18A to fill with fluid. Ex. 1001, 3:14–18. In this open configuration, container 18A is to be filled with fluid, after which, “it may be removed from tube 16A, whereupon elastic valve 20A closes, thereby closing the neck of container 18A and sealing the fluid inside.” Id. at 3:18–21 (emphasis omitted). The ’612 patent refers to Figure 1 to describe an embodiment where elastic valve 20A is in an open configuration to fill a container that has not been filled (i.e., unfilled) and removed from tube 16A. Thus, we are persuaded that, at least, Figure 1 and this accompanying description of Figure 1 in the ’612 patent provides sufficient written description for the recited limitation that “at least first and second ones of the plurality of containers are disposed sufficiently close to each other such that they press against each other . . . in a filled state or an unfilled state.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,527,612 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,527,612
• Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 2, 2018 · IPR2016-01876 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12 and 20–26 were not proven unpatentable over Hattan and JP-Shimano because the weak motivation to combine was outweighed by objective evidence of non-obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “benefit of improved durability, see Pet. 63, neither the Petition nor JP- Shimano ever tie improved durability to improved chain retention, and the Petition never contends that durability was the rationale to modify Hattan in view of JP-Shimano. See Pet. 62–66. Dr. Neptune admitted that these arguments were not contained in his original declaration. Ex. 2129, 96:16– 97:5. A reply is not the place to raise an almost entirely new motivation to combine. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). While we will consider this argument, nevertheless, we find that Dr. Neptune’s shifting basis for the rationale to combine the references suggests that his reasoning is motivated heavily by hindsight, and not by what a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have understood. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding it is improper to combine references “like separate pieces of a simple jigsaw puzzle” without “explain[ing] what reason or motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had to place these pieces together”). Accordingly, we give little weight to Dr. Neptune’s testimony on rationale to combine. Patent Owner also argues that there is no rationale to combine,” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “of the effective filing date of the ’027 patent, “would have a skill level of at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and/or at least three to five years’ experience in the development and design of chain drive systems and components thereof.” Pet. 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 14). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of design experience with chainrings or related technologies. PO Resp. 12 n.3 (citing Ex. 2074 ¶ 25). Any difference between these two definitions is insignificant to this analysis. On this record, however, we find Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art to be more persuasive given the well-developed, relatively simple nature of the art, and apply it for our analysis.” slip op. at 7

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

    “on an assumption that the chain retention techniques of Hattan and JP- Shimano are additive, and would “improve chain retention to the maximum extent possible.” Pet. 63, see also Tr. 8:6–9; Ex. 2074 ¶ 50. The Petition and Dr. Neptune’s opening declaration, however, contain no explanation to support or explain this underlying assumption. Ex. 2074 ¶ 50. This gap in Petitioner’s reasoning is problematic, at least in part, because, as Dr. Sturges explains, Hattan discloses that its device prevents the chain from jumping off the forward oblong sprocket under “any operating conditions,” Ex. 1004, 1:63–66, and that it will “compensate for any out of line condition” of the chain line and will “prevent the chain from ever jumping off of the sprocket wheel,” id. at 2:26–27, 2:34–35. Ex. 2074 ¶ 46. In view of Hattan’s disclosure, Dr. Sturges testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that JP-Shimano would not have improved chain retention and engagement in Hattan, because both are directed to solving the same kind of problems that result in chain drop. Ex. 2074 ¶¶ 45–47. For example, Dr. Sturges testifies that Hattan specifically states that its solution prevents chain line displacement chain drops. Id. ¶ 47. Dr. Sturges also testifies that JP-Shimano seeks to address chain drop resulting from chain line displacement. Id. ¶ 45.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “Having reviewed Patent Owner’s evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that it has shown that it is entitled to a presumption of a nexus between the evidence secondary considerations tied to the X-Sync chainring and the invention recited in the challenged claims. In particular, we find that 5 Petitioner contends that there are “possibly” other patents that cover Patent Owner’s commercial product (Pet. Reply 22), but does not identify them. Petitioner’s allegations of other patents are too insubstantial to be entitled to any weight. Patent Owner has shown that the various X-Sync chainrings are covered by the challenged claims and are coextensive with them. See Ex. 2074 ¶¶ 63, 64 (testimony of Dr. Sturges that the products practice the claims); Ex. 2078–2089 (claim charts); Ex. 2076 ¶ 11 (explaining the families of products Patent Owner sells); Ex. 2073 ¶ 10 (explaining the families of products Patent Owner sells). Here, the claims are directed to chainrings, as well as cranksets and drivetrains that include chainrings. Thus, there is a presumption of a nexus between the evidence of secondary considerations tied to the X-Sync chainring, as well as to cranksets and drive trains that include the X-Sync chainring, and the challenged claims that recite these bicycle components. See Polaris Indus., 882 F.3d at 1073 (“[The challenged claims] broadly cover the entire vehicle, rather than ‘only a component of a commercially successful machine.’ . . . Moreover, the Board did not point to any limitation it found missing in the RZR vehicles. On these undisputed facts, we hold that the Board erred in failing to find that Polaris’s eight RZR vehicles are the inventions disclosed in [the claims].” (citation omitted)). Petitioner tries to rebut this presumption of a nexus by attempting to shift the burden of proof to Patent Owner to prove that the objective indicia is tied to certain claimed features rather than unclaimed features present in the commercial embodiments. Pet. Reply 26–27. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument improperly attempts to shift the burden to Patent Owner. Sur-Reply 8–9. Here, because Patent Owner has shown that it is entitled to a presumption of a nexus between the X-Sync chainring and the challenged claims, the burden is on Petitioner to rebut that nexus. Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392. With respect to the improved chain retention of the X-Sync chainring, Petitioner argues that there are numerous unclaimed features, many of which are touted in advertising materials, but Petitioner asserts that none of the claimed features are touted. Pet. Reply 32–33. Petitioner argues that “[i]n light of the unclaimed features touted by [Patent Owner] and the press, and in the absence of any touting/recognition for the claimed combination,” Patent Owner cannot establish a nexus between the claimed invention and the objective indicia. Id. at 33 (citing Ethicon Endo Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Although Petitioner points to some evidence touting other features, see id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1055), 42 (citing Exs. 2005, 2008, 2027), we find that this evidence is insufficient to overcome the presumption of a nexus that Patent Owner has established. Moreover, much of the evidence is clearly broader than Petitioner acknowledges. In addition to pointing out unclaimed features, there is also praise pointing generally to the “unique tooth profile,” Ex. 2006, “tooth profile,” Ex. 2008, Patent Owner’s “adaptation of the narrow-wide chainring tooth profile,” Ex. 2019, and the “cleverly profiled chainring,” Ex. 2023.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,182,027 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,182,027
• Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 2, 2018 · IPR2017-00118 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12 and 20–26 were not proven unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the objective evidence of non-obviousness outweighed the case for obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “of the effective filing date of the ’027 patent, “would have a skill level of at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and/or at least three to five years’ experience in the development and design of chain drive systems and components thereof.” Pet. 1 n.1 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶ 16). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of design experience with chainrings or related technologies. PO Resp. 12 n.3 (citing Ex. 2074 ¶ 25). Any difference between these two definitions is insignificant to this analysis. On this record, however, we find Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art to be more persuasive given the well-developed, relatively simple nature of the art, and apply it for our analysis.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We find that Petitioner has shown a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of the references. Petitioner has offered evidence that Thompson would have been improved by adding the wide-narrow teeth of JP-Shimano in certain situations when the chain approaches the chairing from the rear gears at an angle. Ex. 1050 ¶¶ 12–14; Ex. 1006, 15:73–75. We find this evidence persuasive and give it significant weight. We do note that we also give some weight to Patent Owner’s evidence that Thompson and JP- Shimano do largely overlap in their solutions, and that the benefits of the combination would be limited. Ex. 2074 ¶¶ 45–50. We find that even though Patent Owner’s arguments do not amount to a teaching away, they do slightly weaken the factual basis of Petitioner’s combination. See Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“But even if a reference is not found to teach away, its statements regarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine that reference with another reference.”).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “Unclaimed features do not prevent the presumption of a nexus, but they may be the basis for rebutting the presumption. Id. To do so, a person challenging patent validity must show that the commercial success, or other objective evidence of non-obviousness, was due to “extraneous factors” including “additional unclaimed features.” Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Merely pointing out unclaimed features in the X-Sync chainring is not enough. Id. (“However, a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone— it must present evidence.”).” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “We have reviewed Patent Owner’s evidence of sales and market share, and find that it demonstrates substantial commercial success within the single chainring market. Ex. 2076 ¶¶ 16–29. In particular, we find the large growth in market share and sales volume, and resulting large market share in the single chainring market, to be indicative of commercial success. Id. ¶¶ 20–29. We find this evidence compelling and entitled to substantial weight. We do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s growth in the single-chainring market was primarily due to cannibalization of its multi-chainring market share, and that Patent Owner’s lack of achieved growth in the overall chainring market (single- and multi-) indicates that there was no commercial success. As Patent Owner notes, cannibalization does not preclude commercial success. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 789 F.2d 903, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Patent Owner presented evidence that it has achieved this large market share, in the single-chainring market, while charging between two and eight times the prices of its competitors in the single chainring market. Ex. 2076 ¶ 13 (stating that Patent Owner’s X-Sync chainrings are sold for more than $90, which is at least twice as expensive as the Race Face chainrings, and in some cases eight times more expensive). Patent Owner also noted that this large market share does not include the sales of its competitors who are licensees. Id. ¶¶ 26–29; see also Tr. 16:12–15 (agreeing that Patent Owner’s drivetrain as a whole was a commercial success). Thus, we find that Patent Owner has presented substantial evidence of commercial success. As we noted above, Petitioner points to evidence that the sales information presented is primarily directed to sales of X-Sync chainrings as parts of cranksets and drivetrain groupsets. See Pet. Reply 21–24. We found above that, for data related to cranksets and groupsets, Patent Owner has only established a nexus for claims 11, 12, 25, and 26. Thus, we find that a strong demonstration of a nexus that exists between claims 11, 12, 25, and 26 and this commercial success information. Accordingly, we find that commercial success weighs significantly in favor of non-obviousness of claims 11, 12, 25, and 26.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 9,182,027 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,182,027
• Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2017 · IPR2016-01160 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not held unpatentable because the asserted combination did not teach the construed synchronization signal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedOther

    “Owner that our construction in the Decision to Institute is overly broad to the extent it encompasses a synchronization frame. Petitioner relies heavily on column 5, lines 50 to 52 of the ’404 patent, but that disclosure does not unambiguously support Petitioner’s proposed construction. The paragraph, which we reproduce below for context, describes “normal (non-sleep mode) operation”: During normal (non-sleep mode) operation, a phase-lock loop (PLL) 62 receives from the FFT 56 a timing reference signal 62a (see FIG. 1A) via a line 62b. The timing reference signal 62a is transmitted from the transmitter with which the receiver 16 communicates (e.g., the CO transmitter). This signal is advantageously a pure tone of fixed frequency and phase which is synchronized with the Master Clock in the transmitter; its frequency defines the frame rate of the transceivers. Other forms of timing signal may, of course, be used, but use of a pure tone has the advantage of simplicity and reliability even when portions of the transceiver are powered down in accordance with the invention. The PLL 62 locks itself to this signal and drives clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter. This also synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to the corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver. Control of the receiver section is provided by the controller 32. Ex. 1001, 5:37–53 (emphasis added to 5:50–52). Rather than read “this” as referring to timing reference signal 62a, as Petitioner contends, we read “this” as referring to what is disclosed in the preceding sentence—i.e., driving clock 30 in synchronism with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter. The synchronism of clock 30 with the Master Clock in the driving transmitter is what “synchronizes frame counter 34 of the CPE transceiver to the corresponding frame counter of the CO transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 5:50–52.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that this term requires an express construction. Patent Owner’s proposed construction merely replaces “full power mode operation” with “transmission and/or reception of data during normal operation.” The parties, however, do not dispute the meaning of “full power mode operation.” As a result, an express construction of this term is not necessary in order to resolve the parties’ dispute.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “We determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. The contentions in the Petition are based upon Petitioner’s proposed construction of “synchronization signal” as encompassing a synchronization frame—i.e., “allowing for frame synchronization.” See, e.g., Pet. 24, 37–38. We have not adopted that construction, however, for the reasons discussed above. Because our construction of “synchronization signal” excludes a synchronization frame, we are not persuaded that the argument and evidence in the Petition shows that the combination of Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413 teaches transmitting/receiving, in full power mode, a “synchronization signal.” Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reliance, in the Reply, upon the teachings of a pilot tone in Vanzieleghem and ANSI T1.413 constitutes a change in theory and, therefore, is beyond the scope of a proper reply. Notwithstanding the mention of “a pilot tone” in paragraph 58 of Dr. McNally’s declaration, the Petition itself unambiguously identifies the synchronization frame, not a pilot tone, as the recited “synchronization symbol.” See, e.g., Pet. 37–38 (citing Bowie’s and ANSI T1.413’s teachings of synchronization frame). We, therefore, do not address whether the pilot tone taught in Vanzieleghem and in ANSI T1.413 teaches the recited “synchronization signal.” As a result, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over Bowie, Vanzieleghem, and ANSI T1.413.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,611,404 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,611,404
• Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00675 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 19–22, and 32 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the claimed remote database.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We determine that Petitioner’s evidence and argument are insufficient to demonstrate that Mahajan teaches a “remote database.” As an initial matter, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan’s teaching of storing information informs a skilled artisan that that storage is a “database,” as required by claim 1. See Pet. 27; Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner also does not adequately explain why a storage medium, such as a hard drive or a server, sufficiently equates with a “database.” Id. Indeed, in response to the question—“[s]o Mahajan’s disclosure of a remote server is not the same thing as disclosing a remote database, correct?”—Dr. Nesbitt testified, “[n]ot exclusively.” Ex. 2011, 123:8–12; see id. at 120:19–21. Dr. Nesbitt further testified that, [a] server would be more of a hardware device, where a database would be more of a software. It would be a place where the data is actually stored within a remote computer or remote server. So it’s the hardware versus what’s in the hardware is the distinction” slip op. at 13

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

    “Although we acknowledge that Mahajan discloses that its system can be used in conjunction with database systems generally, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have modified Mahajan to include a “remote database.” See Pet. 27; Pet. Reply 14–15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 165 (emphasis added). Similarly, Petitioner also does not explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have modified the disclosed remote “server” of Mahajan to include a “database.” See id.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,941,723 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,941,723
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00306 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 63 was not shown unpatentable because Spinney does not disclose performing the selecting and determining steps in parallel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “First, we give no credit to Dr. Chao’s opinion in this regard because it is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,023,853 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00166 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 unpatentable; strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with commercial success and copying, outweighed the obviousness case.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We begin first with the claim language, and note that “three dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 14. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the 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.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

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

    “the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19

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

    “the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502

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.