• 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
• Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2016 · IPR2016-00674 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 14 were unpatentable over the asserted § 103 combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “transmitted after an “event,” and refers to Mahajan’s disclosure that “[a]fter you have swung the iClub, data is wirelessly transmitted to your hand held laptop, cell phone or other electronic device.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 63). As Patent Owner explains (Prelim. Resp. 14), however, Mahajan expressly teaches real-time transmission of data from the microcontroller to the software running on the receiving computer. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 53. After the computer receives the sensor data from the motion capture element, the receiving computer determines whether the incoming data represents a swing event. Id. at ¶ 57. Thus, the receiving computer receives the data before the system has determined that an “event” has occurred. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan, which expressly describes a system predicated on real-time transmission, teaches or suggests receiving data “after an event or periodically requesting said motion capture data.” In addition, Petitioner refers to the disclosure in Oleson of a sensor transmitting data to a mobile phone where the “mobile phone must periodically transmit a message to the motion sensor to prevent the sensor from entering low-power mode,” and that “while in active mode, the motion sensor periodically transmits data to the mobile phone.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 76, 85, 86). We agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 1718) that the Petition does not sufficiently address why a skilled artisan would modify Mahajan’s real-time transmitting microcontroller to implement the cited aspects of Oleson. See Pet. 33. Petitioner’s articulation that the references have similarities, such as Oleson’s field of quantifying sports performance, and that it would have been an “obvious design choice” to combine their teachings provides insufficient facts and reasons to combine. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1, and the remaining dependent challenged claims (claims 2 and 3). Claim 14 recites the same limitation, and Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence presented with respect to claim 1. See Pet. 52 (referring, for claim 14, to the corresponding limitations of claim 1).” slip op. at 9

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

    “transmitting data to a mobile phone where the “mobile phone must periodically transmit a message to the motion sensor to prevent the sensor from entering low-power mode,” and that “while in active mode, the motion sensor periodically transmits data to the mobile phone.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 76, 85, 86). We agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 1718) that the Petition does not sufficiently address why a skilled artisan would modify Mahajan’s real-time transmitting microcontroller to implement the cited aspects of Oleson. See Pet. 33. Petitioner’s articulation that the references have similarities, such as Oleson’s field of quantifying sports performance, and that it would have been an “obvious design choice” to combine their teachings provides insufficient facts and reasons to combine. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1, and the remaining dependent challenged claims (claims 2 and 3). Claim 14 recites the same limitation, and Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence presented with respect to claim 1. See Pet. 52 (referring, for claim 14, to the corresponding limitations of claim 1).” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,039,527
• Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2016 · IPR2016-00672 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 14-16, and 19 were unpatentable over the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1, 47, 9, 11, 1416, and 19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenInstitution denied

    “artisan would have had reason to modify Mahajan’s microcontroller such that these functions would be performed by the microcontroller. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to program these functions in either the microcontroller of Mahajan’s iClub or the mobile device. See, e.g., Pet. 28. In support, Petitioner contends “whether specific functionality is implemented in the software running on the iClub or software running on the mobile device is a matter of design choice.” Pet. 2728 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123, Ex. 1005 ¶ 62). The argument that implementing the software in the iClub would be a matter of design choice is conclusory, and lacks sufficient factual support. See Prelim. Resp. 2627. Although the Petition mentions power consumption, cost, and speed as possible considerations affecting the purported design choice, the Petition does not explain sufficiently how these factors affect or motivated the alleged design choice advanced by Petitioner. Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motivepower, Inc., No. 20151316, slip. Op. 78 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2016) (“Merely stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious. The Board must offer a reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the specific design choice” alleged by Petitioner.).” slip op. at 13

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

    “under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the proper construction includes ‘data that comprises sensor values.’” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner disagrees that “said data” is indefinite, and instead asserts that “said data” should be construed as “data that comprises sensor values.” Prelim. Rep. 6. Aside from the indefiniteness issue, Petitioner and Patent Owner appear to agree as to the proper construction of “said data.” That would appear to weigh in favor of Patent Owner’s position that “said data” is not indefinite. Notwithstanding the apparent disagreement concerning this term, we do not opine further on this issue at this time, as construction of the term is not necessary to any determination made herein. 2. Other Claim Terms We determine that no express construction of any other claim terms is necessary.” slip op. at 7

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

    “is deficient in articulating a reasonable reason to combine the teachings of Mahajan, Edis, and Su. See Prelim. Resp. 35–36. Specifically, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have modified Mahajan to incorporate the recited functions, allegedly taught by Edis and/or Su. For example, Petitioner asserts that “[u]sing thresholding techniques of Edis and Su within the microcontroller of Mahajan, to for example distinguish ‘real swing versus your warm up’ motion, would have been obvious because thresholding sensed data against pre-specified values is common to microprocessor controller DAS.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 127). As another example, Petitioner baldly states that for “signifying a prospective event,” “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to combine Edis with Mahajan, for example, as the way to distinguish a real swing from warm up motion, as is used for signifying a prospective event.” Pet. 32. Similarly, Petitioner states that the “false-positive detection methodology of Su and the variable detection strategy of Edis could have been obviously programmed in the microcontroller of Mahajan.” Pet. 34. Stating only that the functions “could have been obviously programmed” or that the combinations would yield the claim limitation is insufficient rationale. The Petition fatally omits the express articulation of a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings as Petitioner asserts. See KSR Int’l Co., v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”). The omission of a rationale is particularly troublesome in light of Patent Owner’s argument that there is a lack of showing of why it would have been obvious to modify Mahajan’s teachings “so that its microcontroller—with its limited resources and processing power—was responsible for swing identification, rather than the receiving computer.” Prelim. Resp. 27.9 And Petitioner’s reliance on Mr. Nesbit’s 9 We also are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, and the proffered analysis, regarding the deficiencies in the portions Dr. Nesbit’s Declaration identified by Patent Owner, as they amount to conclusory opinions of a rationale for the alleged combinations and lacking factual support or objective evidence supporting those opinions. Prelim. Resp. 2729. Declaration is unavailing as the Declaration repeats the conclusory statement included in the Petition with no further rationale or explanation.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,903,521
• Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. / Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Christy, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2016 · IPR2015-00468 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 10 are anticipated by Hayden; claims 1–18 are unpatentable on the instituted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “machines” and “[t]he ordinary artisan in the field would typically have a bachelor’s level degree in mechanical engineering (or gained such knowledge by equivalent experience), and experience developing vacuum machines that filter air.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:6–9; Ex. 1013 ¶ 8). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide an alternative definition in response. For purposes of this Decision, we consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “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’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). To the extent that we need to consider the parties’ positions on the issue, we adopt Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner

    “During prosecution, Patent Owner distinguished a pulse back cleaning system for multiple reasons, including the reason that the claimed invention “does not flip-flop between vacuuming and blowing.” File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 7,082,640 B2, Ex. 1002, 36. Patent Owner also distinguished other prior art for the reason that it “cannot function without a second centrifugal fan and associated components and limitation (e.g., transverse duct and array of parallel ducts)” whereas the invention was described as “valve 31 and filter 21 are not connected to any other fan, compressor or vacuum source.” Id. at 59. We agree with the district court that the intrinsic evidence does not present a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the source of ambient air. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (the standard for disavowal of claim scope is “exacting”). Figures 2–5 of the ’640 patent show three ambient air ducts 36 under cover 25. Ex. 1001, Figs. 2–5, 3:1–9, 4:22–27, 5:15–17. As the district court found, “[i]t is not clear from the drawing where that duct terminates, and the detailed description states only that ‘[t]he ambient air duct 36 extends from the ambient air port 31b into the source of ambient air 16.’” Ex. 2004, 12. Similarly, the district court found that the statements in the prosecution history regarding the ambient air also “do not exclude the possibility that ‘ambient air’ could come from inside––or both inside and outside––the vacuum head during backflushing.” Id. at 13. Moreover, the distinctions over the prior art included “differences unrelated to the source of the air used for backflushing.” Id. Based on the complete trial record, including the prosecution history, we agree with the district court’s construction of “air surrounding the canister” as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “ambient air.” See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The PTO should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.”). Accordingly, we maintain our construction of “ambient air” to mean “air surrounding the canister.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “(2d ed. 1951) (Ex. 3001). The canister component of the vacuum cleaning machine described in the ’640 patent holds filters and particles filtered by the filters that may settle to the bottom of the canister. Ex. 1001, 3:30–31, 4:50–54. At oral hearing, Patent Owner stated “I believe we chose the word cannister because we are talking about a small unit,” but added “[a]nd I’m not saying this is a distinction.” Tr. 42:12–13, 16. According to Patent Owner, the term is “a common word for this now” as opposed to being uniquely defined by the Specification. Id. at 42:24–25. Patent Owner summarized the generic manner in which the term is used in the ’640 patent as: “We are saying, okay, it doesn’t matter. It’s cannister, a cabinet, a compartment. They are all some form of container.” Tr. 42:25–43:2. Petitioner implicitly construes this term as a “chamber” and not limited to a particular configuration. Pet. Reply 2–5. Petitioner asserts that there is no disavowal in the Specification of configurations for the canister. Id. at 3. In further support of its position, Petitioner quotes the testimony of Mr. Grant describing the prior art wherein he states “[t]he canister of the vacuum is the part where the filters reside and dust is separated from the incoming vacuumed air and collected.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1013 ¶ 10). Based on the entire record, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “canister,” as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure, is “a container.” See Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments because neither the ’640 patent claims nor the teachings of Hayden preclude reading the term “canister,” as construed herein, on Hayden’s “dirty air chamber below plate 8 in which the filters 7 are located.” See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 1). The ’640 patent itself describes such an embodiment in which the canister component is located under a plate. Ex. 1001, 4:59–61 (“A central housing 44 is preferably concentrically located on top of the circular plate 19 covering the cannister 10.”). In other words, Patent Owner’s plate 19 covers canister 10 just as Hayden’s plate 8 covers Hayden’s canister. As such, we find that Hayden discloses “at least two valves disposed outside of said cannister” and “three valves disposed outside of said cannister” as recited in claims 1 and 10, respectively. We also find no limitation in the ’640 patent claims that would preclude a common chamber between the valves and the vacuum source. No specific connective structure between the valves and the vacuum source is required by “each said valve being in pneumatic communication between said vacuum source and a corresponding one of each of said outlet ports and permitting air to be drawn by said vacuum source from said inlet port simultaneously through corresponding ones of said filters,” as recited in claims 1 and 10. Referring to Figure 1 of Hayden, correspondence exists between each valve 11, outlet port 9, and filter 7. Ex. 1003, Fig. 1, 3:40–45. In addition, there is pneumatic communication between these elements of Hayden due to an “air flow path between the dirty air chamber and clean air chamber 10” in which valve chamber 31 lies. Id. at 4:26–31. Furthermore, independent claims 1 and 10 each use the term “comprising,” signaling an open-ended structure, allowing for the inclusion of a common chamber.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,082,640 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,082,640
• Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc. / Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. v. Christy, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2016 · IPR2015-00472 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 10 are anticipated by Eiben; claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 13–15 are obvious over Eiben and Wellan; claims 7–9 and 16–18 are obvious over Eiben, DE219, and Howeth.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “knowledge by equivalent experience), and experience developing vacuum machines that filter air.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:6–9; Ex. 1010 ¶ 8). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide an alternative definition in response. However, Patent Owner characterizes the field of art for the invention as “the art of portable vacuums” while characterizing the field of art for Eiben as “bag house art.” PO Resp. 29. For purposes of this Decision, we consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “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’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). To the extent that we need to consider the parties’ positions on the issue, we adopt Petitioner’s position. We find Patent Owner does not indicate why the field of art should be limited to portable vacuums other than by reference to casters 28 in Figure 2 of the ’640 patent which are said to “allow the cannister 10 to be freely rolled in any direction.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, 4:22–23).4 We also find the ’640 patent describes the invention as broadly relating “generally to vacuum cleaning equipment and more particularly concerns a vacuum cleaner having filters backflushed with ambient air.” Ex. 1001, 1:6– 9; Pet. 25.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The district court found the meaning of “ambient air” was not limited by clear and unmistakable evidence to either (1) air surrounding the outside of the vacuum cleaning machine or (2) air that is not forced or compressed. Opinion and Order, Ex. 2004, 6–14. In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with the district court’s construction and analysis, which is broader than Petitioner’s proposed construction, and found it consistent with the Specification. Dec. on Inst. 7–8. Specifically, Figure 2 of the ’640 patent shows cover 25 “seated on” plate 19 to protect the valves, the operating mechanisms, the controller, and the vacuum source, which are all “mounted above” plate 19. Ex. 1001, 4:22–25. Thus, ambient air coming through the valves may come from the vacuum head under the cover; it need not come exclusively from outside the vacuum machine as Petitioner asserts. There is no evidence in the record whether the ambient air under the cover necessarily would have a particular pressure, including whether it is under atmospheric pressure. See Tr. 43:13–44:2 (Patent Owner describing ambient air as being “in comparison to what is inside of the cannister”). During prosecution, Patent Owner distinguished a pulse back cleaning system for multiple reasons, including the reason that the claimed invention “does not flip-flop between vacuuming and blowing.” File Wrapper of U.S. Patent No. 7,082,640 B2, Ex. 1002, 36. Patent Owner also distinguished other prior art for the reason that it “cannot function without a second centrifugal fan and associated components and limitation (e.g., transverse duct and array of parallel ducts)” whereas the invention was described as “valve 31 and filter 21 are not connected to any other fan, compressor or vacuum source.” Id. at 59. We agree with the district court that the intrinsic evidence does not present a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the source of ambient air. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (the standard for disavowal of claim scope is “exacting”). Figures 2–5 of the ’640 patent show three ambient air ducts 36 under cover 25. Ex. 1001, Figs. 2–5, 3:1–9, 4:22–27, 5:15–17. As the district court found, “[i]t is not clear from the drawing where that duct terminates, and the detailed description states only that ‘[t]he ambient air duct 36 extends from the ambient air port 31b into the source of ambient air 16.’” Ex. 2004, 12. Similarly, the district court found that the statements in the prosecution history regarding the ambient air also “do not exclude the possibility that ‘ambient air’ could come from inside––or both inside and outside––the vacuum head during backflushing.” Id. at 13. Moreover, the distinctions over the prior art included “differences unrelated to the source of the air used for backflushing.” Id. Based on the complete trial record, including the prosecution history, we agree with the district court’s construction of “air surrounding the canister” as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “ambient air.” See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The PTO should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.”). Accordingly, we maintain our construction of “ambient air” to mean “air surrounding the canister.”” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive because the ’640 patent claims are sufficiently broad so as to encompass the distinctions drawn between the figures in the ’640 patent and Eiben. While claims 1 and 10 read on Patent Owner’s embodiment shown in Figures 1–5, the claims also read on Eiben’s embodiment shown in Figures 1 and 3–6. See Ex. 1001, 3:28–4:56 (describing the vacuum shown in Figure 1); Ex. 1003, 3:67–4:57 (describing the vacuum shown in Figures 1, 3–6). Based on the evidence presented, we find nothing in the claim language that precludes Eiben’s “compartment units 10, 12, 14, and 16 [that] are assembled together and mounted atop a hopper 24,” from being a canister with inlet port 28 and at least two outlet ports 30 as required by claims 1 and 10. Pet. 26; id. at 29– 31. Claims 1 and 10 both signal an open-ended structure with the transition term “comprising,” allowing for (1) the inclusion of walls or compartments within the canister, including a hopper compartment at the bottom, and (2) inlet port 28 to include ducts 27. Similarly, we find nothing in claims 1 and 10 that precludes a bag filter as used in Eiben, because the claims do not recite a dirty air/clean air arrangement relative to the outside/inside of the filters. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the ’640 patent having the dirty air/clean air on the outside/inside of the filters are not tied to claim limitations. See PO Resp. 18–27; Pet. Reply 6–8. Claims 1 and 10 merely require that air be drawn “through” the filters. Ex. 1001, 8:13, 17, 9:2, 5. Eiben describes air passing through the walls of its filter bags. Ex. 1003, 4:30–31 (“the air passes transversely through the bags’ walls”), 4:48 (“reverse air flow through the bags”). Therefore, the type of filter used in the ’640 patent is not a patentable difference over Eiben.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,082,640 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,082,640
• American Simmental Association v. Leachman Cattle Of Colorado, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2016 · PGR2015-00005 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are held unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–4, 8–12, and 14–19 are also obvious over Wang alone. The motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Ultimately, we discern that Petitioner and Patent Owner are not very far apart. On education, we agree with Petitioner that evaluating genetic quality is sufficiently complex that it would require, at a minimum, a Master’s Degree in the field. On work experience, we agree with both parties that several years of experience in the field is necessary, with the optimum for a Master’s Degree being five years, and commensurately less for an individual possessing a PhD. We agree with Patent Owner that some understanding of economics and software is required, but agree with Petitioner that such understanding need only be a basic one that can be readily acquired through work experience in the field, with no formal education in that field being necessary. Finally, we disagree with Patent Owner that formal training or experience specific to the feeder calf market needs to be addressed separately, as, for the reasons set forth below, we are unpersuaded that evaluating feeder calves as a subgroup differs materially from evaluation of cattle overall, and that one of ordinary skill in evaluating of genetic quality of cattle generally would not have been familiar with feeder calves specifically, especially when the overwhelming goal of cattle production is to sell beef, of which the primary type sold is feeder calves. Perhaps more importantly, the significance of the level of ordinary skill in the art here is the role it plays in an obviousness analysis, and Patent Owner has not explained in a sufficiently persuasive manner how the disparate definitions impact dispositively 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.”). Accordingly, unless expressly indicated otherwise, we determine that a specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not required, because the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 6

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

    “3. “genetic merit scorecard” Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 recite “genetic merit scorecard.” Petitioner asserts that “genetic merit scorecard” should be construed as “visual display of genetic merit information.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001). Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. PO Resp. 23–26. After considering all evidence and assertions concerning this claim construction, we agree with Petitioner that “genetic merit scorecard” should be construed as “visual display of genetic merit information.”” slip op. at 11

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Owner are rooted sufficiently in the express claim language, and in any case, are peripheral to the above-identified fundamental concept, in that while they may represent variations of the fundamental concept, we are unpersuaded that they alter materially the fundamental concept itself. For example, being “dynamic,” while perhaps placing some temporal aspects on “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits,” does not alter the fact that independent claim 1 is fundamentally directed to “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits.” A similar analysis is applicable to “sale group of feeder calves,” “disparate sources,” and “transforming.” The Specification further supports Petitioner’s argument. The “Field of the Invention” section set forth in the ’557 patent reads as follows: Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to the field of genetic quality and relative market value of livestock. More specifically, embodiments of the present invention facilitate an owner or potential buyer of one or more sale groups of livestock to evaluate the relative market value of the sale groups based on predictions derived from genetic merit estimates of the herd. Ex. 1001, 1:23–29. The “Description of Related Art” section that follows delves heavily into problems associated with determining what the actual value of the livestock is, and more specifically what premium or discount the livestock should command based on these desired genetic merits. Ex. 1001, 1:47–49. The first three sentences of the “Summary” section then read as follows: The Applicants recognize the importance of determining relative market value of a sale group or a group of animals offered for sale from a livestock operation. Various embodiments of methods and apparatus for determining relative market value of a sale group are provided herein. Exemplary embodiments of the present invention include an online genetic merit scorecard system. Ex. 1001, 2:6–12. Based on the above cited portions of the ’557 patent, we determine that the Specification supports heavily Petitioner’s proposed fundamental concept. The unambiguous disclosure in the Specification as to the nature of the invention indicates to us that Petitioner has not over-generalized here.” slip op. at 16

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “PO Resp. 66. However, we are unpersuaded that (a) valuing a group of animals is “significantly more” than valuing a single animal, (b) tailoring a price to a user is “significantly more,” and (c) comparison shopping is “significantly more,” whether taken in succession or as a whole. Indeed, these requirements appear to be routine parts of commerce involving the fundamental concept of “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits.” Patent Owner asserts additionally that the claimed invention does not merely recite the alleged abstract idea and say “apply it” on computer components, because the recited computer components are an integral part of rooting the invention in computer technology. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the claimed invention involves novel technical software that “transforms genetic and performance information associated with the sale group into a dynamically-generated scorecard available to users on-demand.” PO Resp. 67. We disagree, as the recitation of software in the claim, if any at all, is at a highly abstract level, in that the claims recite no more than taking in and outputting data, with no detail as to how that data is manipulated between input and output.5 Absent such detail, we are unpersuaded that the claims are reciting any more than “applying to software” the fundamental concept of “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits,” which is not “significantly more.” As for “dynamically-generated scorecard available to users on-demand,” our analysis of the same in the abstract idea prong of Alice is equally applicable here, namely, that 5 “MR. COHN: Your Honor, the little calculator that’s in Windows is a dynamic calculator. It’s been there for 25, 30 years. You pull it up. You type in five times two and you hit equals and it spits the answer back to you on demand right there.” Tr. 85:24–86:2. we are unpersuaded that “dynamic” and “on-demand” are sufficiently related to the claims. Patent Owner cites DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) in support of their position, but it is precisely because of the instructive nature of the problem-solution approach in that case that we arrive at our conclusion here. Specifically, DDR Holdings held that the “problem of retaining website visitors” involves a “claimed solution [that] is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC, 773 F.3d at 1257. Such is not the case here, where the problem, as clearly articulated above in the aforementioned portions of the Specification, is “determining an animal’s relative economic value based on its genetic and physical traits.” We are unpersuaded that this problem, or its solution, involves or requires anything computer-related. 4. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,725,557 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,725,557

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.