• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01414 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the 17 combinations listed in the order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The fact that other parts of the claims recite locations of the image capture devices and the overlap zones does not mean that anything more should be read into the “without duplication of objects” clause, which appears clear on its face. Further, the claims do not say anything about parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. Indeed, parallax is not the same as the duplication of objects. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 11 (“Duplication . . . is different from parallax. For example, when each of the cameras have a common center of projection, there will be little or no parallax, but given their overlapping fields of view, the cameras may nonetheless capture the same objects multiple times resulting in duplication.” (citation omitted)). Thus, we are not persuaded that reading in any language pertaining to parallax effects would be appropriate based on the language of the claims.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party explains in detail why their proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. After reviewing the evidence, including the cited prior art, however, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s definition is substantially correct. The ’724 patent describes “rearview vision systems which provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle” using “image capture devices, such as CMOS [(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor)] imaging arrays and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–27. “Camera-based rearview vision systems” had been proposed at the time, but had not “obtained commercial acceptance” and suffered from various problems according to the ’724 patent. Id. at col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 55. The ’724 patent further acknowledges that various aspects of the disclosed systems, such as, for example, CMOS and charge-coupled device (CCD) imaging arrays, optical correction systems, various types of image filtering, backlit liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), and systems for measuring the distance of an object behind the vehicle, were known at the time. See, e.g., id. at col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 12, ll. 33–37, col. 13, ll. 26–41, col. 17, ll. 48–62, col. 20, ll. 42–53, col. 22, ll. 3–19, 44–55. Drs. Wolberg and Wilhelm further testify as to the development and state of the art by the time of the ’724 patent, which we find helpful in assessing what background knowledge would have been available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 27–39; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 20–27. As a whole, the evidence indicates a higher level of ordinary skill than what Patent Owner proposes, and suggests, for example, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had at least some understanding of ways in which images from multiple cameras could be combined. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 28–38; Ex. 1003, 3, 6; Ex. 1005, 3–6. Accordingly, based on our review of the ’724 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’724 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, computer science, or physics (or equivalent work experience), with some familiarity with how cameras may be used in vehicles and a working understanding of combining image data from multiple cameras and microprocessor-driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary decision making. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (citation omitted). We first summarize the evidence presented regarding Wang’s alleged public accessibility. Wang is a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and has a copyright notation of “TH0367-3/91/0000/0100$01.00 © 1991 IEEE” on the first page. See Ex. 1009, 1. Petitioner contends that the document was published “on May 27–31, 1991,” citing the testimony of Dr. Wolberg. Pet. 7. Dr. Wolberg testifies that “[a]s a person who regularly reviews scholarly articles, including IEEE publications such as the Wang article, and as someone who regularly attends conferences such as the IEEE conference in which the Wang paper was presented,” he believes that Wang was published in May 1991. Ex. 1020 ¶ 84. Dr. Wolberg also discusses two publications (Exhibits 1040 and 1042) that cite Wang prior to the effective filing date of the ’724 patent (May 22, 1996), “which further indicates to [Dr. Wolberg] that Wang was publicly accessible.” Id.; see Ex. 1040, 12 (cited reference 16); Ex. 1042, 3 (cited reference 4). Finally, he cites the University of Edinburgh website, which “states that the authors of the Wang article began work on CMOS imaging sensors as early as 1986, and began publishing articles reporting the results of their work that led to the incorporation of a CMOS chip in a video camera in 1989.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1044). Petitioner presents additional evidence with its Reply that allegedly confirms Wang’s public accessibility prior to May 22, 1996. Reply 11–12. First, Petitioner submits a declaration from Gerard P. Grenier, the Senior Director of Publishing Technologies for the IEEE.17 Ex. 1055. Mr. Grenier states that Wang “was published and presented as part of [the] Euro [A]SIC ’91 [conference] which occurred May 27–31, 1991.” Id. ¶ 9. According to Mr. Grenier, “[t]he Article was published by IEEE as part of the conference proceedings on the date of the conference. Copies of the conference proceedings were made available to attendees of the conference.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Grenier also testifies that “IEEE maintains records of the dates on which articles were first made available for public download,” “[t]hese records are maintained as part of the ordinary course of business of the IEEE [and] are updated regularly as articles are published,” and he has “personal knowledge of the records.” Id. ¶ 7. Second, Petitioner submits a copy of Wang, with a “EURO ASIC ’91” cover page and table of contents, “[s]helved” at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City, Missouri in 1991. Ex. 1046. Third, Petitioner submits a certified copy of Wang from the Library of Congress, with the same cover page and table of contents and a date stamp of June 5, 1992. Ex. 1060. Fourth, Petitioner notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision finding similar claims with a priority date of February 26, 1993, unpatentable based in part on Wang in 17 Petitioner submitted a substantially similar version of the declaration, dated approximately one month earlier, with its Petition, but did not discuss the declaration in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1039, with Ex. 1055. Our analysis applies equally to both versions of the declaration. In re Magna Elecs., Inc., 611 F. App’x 969, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (Ex. 1045). Reply 11. Patent Owner disputes the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence of” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01410 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combinations listed in the Order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

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

    “parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. See supra Sections II.A.2–3. Rather, we interpret “synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects appearing in the overlap zones, and interpret “synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the claims allow for a “minimal” level of multiple exposure and only require a “nearly exact” representation of what the virtual camera would see. We are not persuaded that any parallax effects that might remain when the pattern recognition techniques of Mitsubishi are used in Yamamoto’s system, as Petitioner asserts, would cause more than “minimal” multiple exposure or prevent the resulting image from being a “nearly exact” representation. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 110; Ex. 1066 ¶ 25. Moreover, even if the resulting image in the combined system would suffer from some parallax effects, we do not see how that contradicts Petitioner’s asserted reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamamoto’s system, or why parallax concerns would have outweighed the advantage of improved image processing, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have abandoned the three camera arrangement of Yamamoto. See Reply 15–17; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In that respect, we find Dr. Wolberg’s analysis of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings compelling. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 101–15; Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 22–37.” slip op. at 32

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “public accessibility. PO Resp. 17–21. Based on all of the evidence of record,18 however, we are persuaded that Wang was disseminated or otherwise made available prior to May 22, 1996, to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence could have located it. Most probative are the Library of Congress certification and Linda Hall Library documentation, which show that Wang was catalogued and readily available through these libraries. See Exs. 1046, 1060. Mr. Grenier further testifies that copies of the article were made available to attendees of the EURO ASIC ’91 conference, which was an IEEE academic conference pertaining to ASICs. See Ex. 1039; Ex. 1055; Ex. 1060, 2–13 (stating that the conference “includes reports on ASIC design experiences, advances in design methods and tools, and on the evolution of ASIC technology,” and is “the definitive place . . . for the academic community to exchange ideas”; listing numerous papers to be 18 We are persuaded that all of Petitioner’s evidence should be considered, including the evidence introduced with the Reply, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, during a conference call with the parties on May 26, 2016, Patent Owner sought authorization to file a motion to “strike” Petitioner’s new evidence and portions of Petitioner’s Reply. See Paper 20. We determined that a motion to strike was not appropriate at that time, but stated that “[s]hould either party request a hearing in this proceeding, . . . the parties may address the propriety of the exhibits and Petitioner’s Reply during oral argument. If the parties choose not to request a hearing, Patent Owner may request another conference call and we will determine whether additional briefing or any other action may be appropriate at that time.” Id. at 3; Ex. 1071, 20:14–22:18. Patent Owner did not request oral argument, and did not request another conference call to address the issue. presented relating to, for example, digital signal processing ASICs, chip architecture, and graphic application and image processing ASICs). Given the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent set forth above, see supra Section II.B, we are persuaded that the EURO ASIC ’91 conference is the type of conference that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been interested in and likely attended. The dates and documentation for the conference also are consistent with the other submitted evidence, including the copyright notation of Wang itself, which states in part “© 1991 IEEE.” See Ex. 1009, 1. Finally, as Petitioner correctly points out, the first article cited by Dr. Wolberg shows that Wang in fact was accessed by some other individuals working in the field of image sensors. See Reply 12; Ex. 1040. Based on the record presented, we are persuaded that Wang is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• The Boeing Company v. Seymour LevineAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01341 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The definition of “advice” is “information or notice given.” Ex. 3001 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 32 (1971), 3.). Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of “maintenance advice” is consistent with the aforementioned evidence, in that “maintenance advice” can include maintenance information, but does not require “recommended maintenance actions.” Patent Owner argues that this dictionary definition cited by the Board includes an alternative definition of “advice” as a “recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 3001, 3). Patent Owner further argues that this alternative definition of “advice” is most consistent with specification. PO Resp. 33. Patent Owner fails, however, to cite to any portions of the specification to support this argument (see id.) and fails to explain why we should not be guided by the more general statements in the specification, such as the description in the specification that a “preferred maintenance advisory” can be based “on an expert system for fault isolation,” which is in no way “recommended maintenance actions.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–37. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “maintenance advice” must include recommended maintenance actions. Accordingly, we adopt the portion of the proposed definitions on which the parties agree and determine that the term “maintenance advice” means “problem-specific maintenance information.” See also Dec. 7–8.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art relevant to the ’618 patent would have a “B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. According to Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Grabowsky, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’618 patent would have “at least a B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85; as well as either an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 8. Thus, both declarants generally agree on the level of skill, although Mr. Grabowsky suggests experience is required in addition to the B.S. degree or the FAA Mechanic Certificate. See id. Based on our review of the ’618 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’618 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent Owner’s Declarant, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We are not persuaded that the additional experience of an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics, is required, as suggested by Mr. Grabowsky, as we are unclear as to why the claimed subject matter is beyond the abilities of someone who otherwise meets applicable federal regulatory standards. Based on the stated qualifications of Dr. Helfrick (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–9) and the stated qualifications of Mr. Grabowsky (Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 6–7), Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent Owner’s Declarant both meet the requirements of this definition. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

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

    “and ARINC 624-1 because ARINC 624-1 is a standard directed to the very types of on-board systems discussed in Ward.”)). Additionally, Petitioner contends that ARINC publishes standards for the aviation industry, developed by committees that include aircraft manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and airlines, and that the ACARS transmitter disclosed in Ward is based on, and, thus, would follow, an ARINC standard. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23, 75). Also, Petitioner contends that both Ward and ARINC 624-1 discuss utilizing (1) onboard maintenance systems including ACMS to collect aircraft performance data and (2) an ACARS transmitter to transmit such data to a ground station. Pet. 30. Petitioner adds that ARINC 624-1 provides an explicit motivation to utilize Ward’s ground based maintenance analysis software in implementing its maintenance system, because ARINC 624-1 states that “if known in advance of an airplane’s arrival at a terminal, selected information held in the OMS central maintenance computer’s memory could be useful to line maintenance personnel in planning timely corrective action.” Pet. 30–31 (quoting Ex. 1014 § 2.2.4). We agree, for the reasons stated by Petitioner, that, given the similarity and overlap in disclosures, and applicability of the ARINC standard to the ACARS transmitter of Ward, a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the system in Ward with the teachings in ARINC 624-1. In view of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has presented and sufficiently established an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” with respect to claim 4 for this ground, and we adopt its contentions as our own. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “on an aircraft having a flight data recorder.” Pet. Reply 15.10 Furthermore, Petitioner identifies that claims 8–10 all require “aircraft position data directed to said flight data recorder.” Id. Petitioner argues that Mr. Levine’s October 9, 1996 Invention Disclosure is insufficient, because it does not reflect the conception of the invention that Patent Owner ultimately claimed, which requires two data recorders—one onboard the aircraft and a second, remote recorder on the ground. Id. We do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that claims 4 and 8–10 require a flight data recorder on the ground, as claim 4 merely recites a “central station” “configured to receive and analyze said digital aircraft performance.” We do agree, however, with Petitioner’s argument that the express language of independent claim 4 requires “an aircraft having a flight data recorder.” Furthermore, claim 4 requires that the “digital aircraft performance data,” which the “central station” is configured to receive and analyze, is “data directed to the flight data recorder.” Thus, the invention recited in independent claim 4, and its dependent claims, must include a flight data recorder onboard the aircraft and, separately, a central station configured to receive and analyze data directed to the onboard flight data recorder. 10 The recitation “[a]n aircraft maintenance system for use on an aircraft having a flight data recorder” appears in the preamble of claim 4. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, the body of claim 4 refers to “the flight data recorder” as an active limitation in the claim. Therefore, we determine that the preamble is limiting for claim 4.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS RE39,618 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technology CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2016 · PGR2016-00026 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–25 were more likely than not unpatentable for indefiniteness or obviousness over Berardi and Gladfelter.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the ’057 patent “would have been a person having general knowledge about and experience with the manufacture and/or use of hoses and with fluid mechanics and materials science as they relate to hoses and how hoses work generally. The person of ordinary skill has at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion. On these facts, we determine that Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is credible.” slip op. at 7

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

    “’057 patent defines the following relevant claim terms: “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Petitioner does not dispute that these claim terms are defined expressly by the ’057 patent, nor does Petitioner indicate that these claim terms are indefinite. Next, each independent claim recites expressly that the “stretched length” is longer than the “extended length,” which we construed above as “the length the hose or those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure.” Finally, the term “maximum stretched length,” both by the use of the word “maximum” and the express definition set forth in the ’057 patent, indicates that it constitutes an upper bound for the term “stretched length.” Accordingly, through transitive analysis, we determine that the recited term “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Relative claim terminology is acceptable if one of ordinary skill would have understood what is claimed, in light of the Specification. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 10

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

    “those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure,” and also determined that “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” When considered in the aggregate, we see that “extended length” is a length of a hose attributable to only fluid pressure, while “stretched length” is a length of a hose attributable to any force other than fluid pressure. Accordingly, a discussion of the prior art must acknowledge the interplay between the length of the hose, fluid pressure, and other forces, in order to meet the aforementioned claim limitation.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,182,057
• Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00899 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three combinations of prior art identified by the Board.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.11” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties’ statements of the level of ordinary skill are not significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,202,395
• Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00898 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three instituted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. 6 The familiarity may have been gained, as proposed by Petitioner, by “approximately three years of experience in combine or agricultural equipment design, including components thereof, such as headers and header height control systems” (Pet. 5 (citation omitted)), but also may have been gained through other experience. sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that under either party’s proposed construction, Cleveland’s sensor arm, including spring 38, is flexible. See infra pages 41–42 (Section III.B.5.a.ii.b)2.b.). Accordingly, we need not choose between either party’s proposed constructions. 2. Other Claim Terms The parties propose constructions for several additional claim terms, including “pre-loaded,” “angular deflection sensing means,” “control means,” “biasing means,” “first stop means,” “second stop means,” “guard means,” and “flange.” Pet. 11–15; Resp. 19–23. Although the parties have some disagreement as to the meaning of several of these terms, there is no dispute that the references upon which we instituted review disclose these elements of the claims.4 Accordingly, there is no controversy as to these terms that requires our resolution in order to ascertain whether the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention in light of the references and arguments before us.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingMixed

    “a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.13” slip op. at 23

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

    “e. Conclusion of Obviousness We have considered Petitioner’s evidence and argument and determine that the combination of DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA meets the limitations of claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, with rational underpinning, for combining the teachings of these references. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and determine that they are unpersuasive. The parties do not introduce or rely on objective indicia of nonobviousness. After weighing the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34 would have been obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,202,395
• Jackel International Limited / Mayborn USA, Inc. v. Admar International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2016 · IPR2015-00979 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the cited references did not teach or suggest the claimed spout.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In summary, we find that the extrinsic evidence cited by Patent Owner indicates that the ordinary and customary meaning of “spout,” as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure of the ’841 patent, is “a tube or lip projecting from a container, through which liquid can be poured and through which a user drinks” (see Ex. 1001 at 2:6–11, 5:11–13, 5:60–67, 6:2–7, 6:17–23, 10:5–8, Figs. 1, 2, 5, 11–14, claims 1, 8; Ex. 2011, 1688) and does not include a nipple (see Ex. 2022 at 5–8, Figs. 1–3; Valderrama Decl. ¶¶ 91–94). Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’ and ‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’”). Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we interpret “spout” to mean “a tube or lip projecting from a container, through which liquid can be poured and through which a user drinks” and does not encompass a nipple.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For the reasons discussed above in Section II.A, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the ’841 patent’s specification of “spout” to be “a tube or lip projecting from a container, through which liquid can be poured and through which a user drinks” and does not encompass a nipple. We agree with Patent Owner that liquid cannot be poured through a nipple. PO Resp. 10 (“Spouts are intended for a stream of liquid, while nipples are intended for liquid to seep.”); see also Tr. 24:2– 26:3, 29:12–16 (arguing liquids are poured through a spout); Ex. 1022 at 140:1–12 (Mr. Valderrama testifying that Raymond and Mutti do not have a spout); Ex. 2026, 34:20–35:15, 50:23–51:7 (Dr. Brown testifying that Raymond does not refer to a spout). We find that liquid cannot be poured through Petitioners’ asserted spout (Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32; Ex. 1003 at 5:17–20, Fig. 2)). The full record persuades us that Petitioners’ asserted spout in Raymond and similar structure in Mutti do not teach or suggest the spout of claim 1. See PO Resp. at 28–30 (citing Valderrama Decl. ¶¶ 135– 138; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2–4; Ex. 2026, 27:24–25:16, 86:10–25). Therefore, we find that Raymond fails to teach or suggest the spout of claim 1, as argued by Petitioners. Petitioners rely on Mutti to teach slits that would be understood to be self-sealing. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 69; Ex. 1004, Figs. 10–11). Petitioners’ reliance on Mutti does not remedy the deficiency discussed above regarding the “spout” of claim 1.” slip op. at 21

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Declaration of Stuart Brown (Ex. 1002)” because Patent Owner contends that “Dr. Brown admittedly has no experience in the design or development of the no-spill cups at issue in the ’841 patent” and “thus no basis to render an opinion of a person ordinarily skilled in the art.” Paper 31, 1. Petitioners respond that Patent Owner “failed to make a timely objection within ten business days of the institution of trial in this matter as required by 37 C.F.R. 42.64(b)(1)” and that Dr. Brown “is more than qualified to opine as a technical expert witness in the relevant art.” Paper 30, 1. Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 34). We agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is not in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). Even if Patent Owner’s Motion complied with our rules, however, as discussed above, we considered the Brown Declaration against the full record and gave it appropriate weight. And even having considered the relevant portions of the Brown Declaration, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding whether the relied upon references teach or suggest “spout.” We, thus, deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioners that the portions of Petitioners’ Reply identified by Patent Owner are properly responsive to arguments presented by Patent Owner in its briefs. Also, to the extent any of the identified portions can be deemed new arguments, even when those new arguments are considered, as discussed above, we are nevertheless persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding whether the relied upon references teach or suggest “spout,” and so the objection is overruled.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,695,841 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,695,841
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00891 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Praxair failed to prove claims 1–16 unpatentable under the three §103 grounds because it did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration information from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable. Because Praxair’s obviousness analysis for dependent apparatus claims 2–11, as well as the dependent method claims 12–16, asserted in each of the grounds in this proceeding relies on the deficient asserted combination including Bathe and Peters, we similarly are not persuaded that Praxair has sustained its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 27

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

    “argument and testimony that Peters’s valve could work on Bathe’s cylinder does not explain why or how a person of skill in the art would combine Bathe and Peters, only that they could. PO Resp. 43–44. That Bathe could be modified by simply placing Peters’s valve on the cylinder to control gas flow from the cylinder, does not, alone, satisfy the requirements for combining the prior art. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Experts “testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to her belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so.”). Petitioner’s challenge lacks an adequate motivation, not only to incorporate the smart valve of Peters into Bathe, but also to: (1) repurpose the incorporated valve by using (a) its “memory to store gas data comprising one or more of gas identification, gas expiration date and gas concentration” and (b) its processor and transmitter “to send and receive wireless optical line-of-sight signals to communicate the gas data to the control module that controls gas delivery to a subject” and (2) modify the Bathe system, such that its CPU would receive the wirelessly transmitted gas concentration data, even though the CPU already receives (and uses) flow and operator input data to provide a desired NO concentration. See Ex. 1005, 6:5–20.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “read [Bathe] and been motivated to apply subsequent improvements to component parts of that system, such as the improved valve of [Peters].” Ex. 1002 at ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:11–15). Dr. Stone does not, however, point to any persuasive evidence or disclosure in Bathe, or provide sufficient explanation or reasoning to support this statement. See id. In particular, Dr. Stone does not describe what the “improvements” would have been or provide sufficient rationale as to why Bathe, which already has a connection between a supply cylinder and a gas delivery device and teaches verification of gas concentration from the cylinder by sensor 65 in the delivery system, would be improved by Peters’s manually actuated valve handle and included memory to meet the limitations of the independent claims. See Ex. 1005, 6:11–15. We find Dr. Stone’s testimony deficient as to showing any suggestion in Bathe or otherwise that would have motivated one of skill in the art to add Peters’s valve and memory to Bathe. We are also not persuaded that a person of skill in the art would have” slip op. at 23

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,573,210 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,573,210
• Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00889 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations because Praxair did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeOther

    “D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Praxair asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and would have had at least two years’ experience in biomedical engineering designing medical gas delivery or monitoring systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–18). INO does not expressly dispute the general level of skill in the art proffered by Praxair but adds through its declarant, Mr. Warren P. Heim, that one of skill in the art would “know Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Current Good Manufacturing Practices.” Ex. 2021 ¶ 107.” slip op. at 15

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

    “presented by both parties and the prior art itself, we find that Praxair has not shown a sufficient reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the proposed combination of Bathe, Peters, FR ’804, and the IR Standard. PO Resp. 36–53. INO points out, correctly, that Praxair has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Peters’s smart valve, having a memory for compiling data for billing and invoicing functions, with Bathe. Id. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Praxair’s inability to provide sufficient motivation for combining Peters and Bathe is remedied by the introduction of FR ’804, particularly given that Bathe already included an in-line sensing unit to sense and verify the gas concentration from the cylinder as required by FDA guidance. Id. at 47.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “time of litigation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”). “Good ideas may well appear ‘obvious’ after they have been disclosed.” Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc., 119 F.3d 953, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, Praxair’s attempt to transform Bathe from having a sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration data from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,573,209 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,573,209
• Fitbit, Inc. v. Bodymedia, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2016 · IPR2016-00707 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Fitbit did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 would have been obvious over Mault 470 and Mault 089, which were not shown to be prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable construction of “contextual data of the individual” as recited in the claim limitation 1(b)(i) is “data relating to an individual’s activity state environment, surrounding, or location.” Pet. 17. Petitioner asserts that this construction was applied in the related ITC proceeding. Id. (citing Ex. 1015, 17–22, 33). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed construction. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for “contextual data of the individual.”” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “of the claimed subject matter without explaining what the parent application conveys to those skilled in the art. See Pet. 9–10 (discussing whether June 2000 applications contain “equivalent description” of claim 1 limitations); Ex. 1003 ¶ 32 (addressing whether “equivalent description” exits in the parent applications). Contrary to Petitioner’s application of the “equivalent description,” the test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is not “the presence or absence of literal support in the [parent application] for the claim language,” In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983), but instead is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64; see Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d at 1375). In the present case, Petitioner relies on conclusory statements that [t]he June 2000 applications do not contain an equivalent description of a processing unit configured to provide feedback for an individual’s weight-loss goal by performing each of the steps recited in subparts b.(i)–(v) of claim 1 in sufficient detail such that one of skill in the art can clearly conclude the applicant invented the claimed invention.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted ground that claims 1–29 would have been unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,398,546

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.