• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2020 · IPR2018-01760 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10–12, 14–21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire; claims 8, 9, 13, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art.3 Based on the complete trial record, we find 3 Dr. Orso testified to a slightly different description of the level of skill in the art (Ex. 2002 ¶ 36), but Patent Owner did not argue during trial that Dr. Orso’s description should be adopted instead of Petitioner’s description and waived any such argument as a result. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 Dr. Staniford’s testimony credible and persuasive (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–24), and we adopt Petitioner’s definition as a result. B.” slip op. at 7

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

    “an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily construed the term “network-threat indicator” as an “indicator that represents the identity of a resource associated with a network threat.” Inst. Dec. 8. During trial, neither party disputed this preliminary construction. See PO Resp. 25; Pet. Reply 7–8; Tr. 10:22–11:9. We do not discern any evidence in the full record after trial indicating that this construction is incorrect or should be modified. Moreover, the Specification supports this construction, indicating that “network addresses, ports, fully qualified domain names (FQDNs), uniform resource locators (URLs), uniform resource identifiers (URIs), or the like” are examples of “network-threat indicators.” Ex. 1001, 3:18–26. Thus, we apply this construction in this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on the above facts and case law, we conclude that Sourcefire was publicly accessible. The evidence of record indicates that the Sourcefire 3D System was publicly marketed and sold, and that the Sourcefire reference was actually distributed to over 500 customers of the Sourcefire 3D System. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11, 19; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 5–9. This vastly exceeds the distribution to six people in MIT and distribution of 80 copies in Garrett. Record evidence also supports Petitioner’s contention that the customers who received Sourcefire included entities interested in network security products, including persons of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1042 ¶ 9; see also Ex. 1004, 1, 32–33 (identifying Sourcefire as a “User Guide” and indicating Sourcefire provides information for network administrators); Ex. 1005 ¶ 5 (indicating Sourcefire was drafted in consultation with, and reviewed by, engineers who designed the Sourcefire system). Moreover, similar to MIT and as discussed in Medtronic, the record indicates that the recipients of Sourcefire were not subject to confidentiality requirements restricting use or further distribution. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Sourcefire copyright page stating, “You may use . . . and otherwise copy and distribute [Sourcefire] solely for non-commercial use”).5 Although Patent Owner asserts that MIT and Klopfenstein are distinguishable because they involved “the free distribution of academic documents to conference and meeting attendees” (PO Sur-reply 7), case law indicates that distribution to commercial entities also may be sufficient. See Garrett, 422 F.2d at 878; Pet. Reply 3.6” slip op. at 15

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

    “Id. at 65. These largely conclusory arguments, however, fail to explain how refreshing an event view or event summary page, whether at a regular interval or otherwise, teaches generating different types of log entries at the same time for different portions of packets in the manner claimed. The cited testimony of Dr. Staniford does not provide any further illumination, instead repeating essentially the same conclusory statements made in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 162, 173; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Petitioner’s Reply also fails to supply the necessary explanation or supporting evidence. Petitioner notes that “flow-log entries are generated from the packet-logs”—thus, flow-log entries must be generated after the corresponding packet-log entries and would reflect any changes made to those entries. Pet. Reply 19–21. Although true, these facts pertain only to a single portion of packets, i.e., that their packet-log entries are generated first, and that the related flow-log entries are generated afterward. The same is true even considering that this process can occur at a predetermined “refresh interval.” Petitioner does not identify any specific teaching or suggestion in Sourcefire that indicates how the generation of log entries for two different portions of packets would operate. Instead, Petitioner relies on a bare assertion—without any specific basis in Sourcefire—that “the processing of the packet-logs and the flow-logs are continually being updated or refreshed.” Without sufficient supporting evidence, that bare assertion and the conclusory testimony of Dr. Staniford are inadequate to meet Petitioner’s burden to prove the unpatentability of these claims by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,413,722 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,413,722
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Velos Media, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2020 · IPR2019-00194 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 13–15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds failed to establish the claimed scan passes or scan order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application resulting in the ’449 patent “would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of video coding.” Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner does not contest that definition of a skilled artisan or offer a different one. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the descriptions in the ’449 patent and the asserted art, and we adopt it.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Although Petitioner proposes a construction for “information indicating levels of significant coefficients” (Pet. 27), we determined in the Institution Decision that there was no need to construe the phrase. Inst. 5. Absent any indication from the parties why such a construction would impact our analysis, we reach that same conclusion here. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6

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

    “the phrase “in a first scan pass” and shows the proper grammatical relationship. That limitation recites “coding information indicating levels . . . according to the scan order used for coding the information indicating significant coefficients in a second scan pass.” The phrase “in a second scan pass” serves not to frame the scan order—the scan order for coding level information must be the same as the scan order for coding significance information. Rather, “in a second scan pass” relates to the phrase “coding information”—no other understanding of “in a second scan pass” would make sense. For internal consistency, that same understanding must apply to the first limitation such that “in a first scan pass” frames the step of “coding information.” Thus, the claim language requires coding significance information in a first scan pass, and then coding level information in a second scan pass, where each scan pass uses the same scan order.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Cheon’s disclosure regarding a purported second scan is insufficient to carry Petitioner’s burden. The primary disclosure Petitioner relies on states only that “[l]evel information of an effective coefficient . . . is encoded after the significance map is encoded.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 175. That does not expressly state that a second scan is performed to encode the level information. Petitioner is left relying on a statement by its declarant that a person of skill would have understood to perform a second scan pass when encoding the level information. Pet. 61. But Petitioner’s declarant provides no explanation and instead simply makes the conclusion. Ex. 1002 ¶ 127. We do not afford significant weight to such a conclusory statement. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We are left with the possibility that Cheon’s paragraph 175 discloses a second scan, but that does not persuade us that Cheon makes an adequate disclosure to teach a second scan. In this regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant that skilled artisans would have understood Cheon’s paragraph 175 to teach a single scan pass. Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 158–159.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,338,449 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,338,449
• Ralph Lauren Corporation v. Lexos Media IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01755 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81, and 82 are unpatentable under § 103; the remaining challenged claims are not determined unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Decision issues under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having considered the evidence of record, and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 27, 33, 40, 41, 72, 81 and 82 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 12– 15, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 53–56, 58–63, 73–75, and 77–80 of the ’449 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a master’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or a related field, or hold a bachelor’s degree in Computer 4 The record contains no evidence relating to secondary considerations. Science, Computer Engineering, or equivalent and have at least two years of relevant work experience in the fields of UI [(user interface)] design and OSs.” Pet. 10–11. In the Institution Decision, we preliminary adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, noting that the prior art in this case demonstrated the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Inst. Dec. 10 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Patent Owner does not comment on or dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and instead cites Okajima’s holding regarding the level of skill in the prior art without raising any issues regarding whether the prior art here reflects a level of ordinary skill different from that proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 10 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). We adopt Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the ’449 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Petitioner proposed construction of several claim terms in the Petition. Pet. 12–18. However, none of these claim terms require construction to resolve the controversy. Petitioner also argued for a construction of an additional term (“wherein said specified content information further comprises information to be displayed on said display of said user’s terminal”) in its Reply. Pet. Reply 13. Patent Owner contends that this argument is a new argument raised improperly for the first time in the Reply. PO Sur-Reply 10–11. We agree. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding ... patent owner response.” See also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). Therefore, we will not address the new construction proposed for this claim term.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “A petitioner must choose which grounds of invalidity to assert in the petition and “the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Intelligent Bio- Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Circ. 2017) (a petitioner is foreclosed from “shifting” in post-petition arguments to a new theory of prima facie obviousness based on a different passage of a prior art reference than was used in the petition); see PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019,5 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated case of unpatentability.”); Trial Practice Guide Update August 2018,6 14 (same). Therefore, we evaluate Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation [c.i] relying upon Malamud’s message relating to a preview cursor in Malamud to teach the “specified content information.” Patent Owner does not make any arguments relating to whether Malamud’s message, in view of the teachings of Anthias, teaches limitation [c.i] of claim 1. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9–18.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,118,449 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,118,449
• Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Memory Technologies, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2019 · IPR2019-00638 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5–7, 12–15, 19, or 25 were unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered all submissions of both parties, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–3, 5–7, 12–15, 19, and 25. The Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “result in permanent write protection to result in permanent write protection—lacks sufficient clarity. It is unclear whether a single instance of permanent write protection is sufficient to meet the limitation, or whether all future executions of the redefined command must result in permanent write protection until another redefinition occurs. We determine that, in the context of the Specification of the ’370 patent, the redefinition, when accomplished, applies to all future executions of the command until it is redefined again. It is insufficient to meet the limitation if, after the redefinition, the redefined command still may function the way it used to function prior to the redefinition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “respect to the requirements of “to redefine the command to allow permanent write protection” as we have construed and discussed above. Nothing in Chevallier as identified by Petitioner indicates that setting the secure function bit to some value changes the meaning of the write protect command in the sense that it can no longer be used to provide temporary write protection, and can be used thereafter, until the next redefinition, solely to provide permanent write protection. The secure function bit of Chevallier, identified by Petitioner, serves only to enable the secure function (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 38, 40) and is nowhere described in Chevallier as changing the meaning of the locking command such that it no longer can be used to cause write protection of a memory block temporarily.” slip op. at 16

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

    “ordinary skill in the art would have found ambiguity in Chevallier’s embodiment in which the same command is used both for “locking” and for “securing.” In that regard, Petitioner refers to “any” ambiguity. The same is true with respect to Dr. Baker, who testifies: “a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been particularly motivated to use the secure function bit in that circumstance because doing so would eliminate any ambiguity as to whether the command meant ‘lock’ or ‘secure.’” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 259, 270, 276 (emphasis added). Also, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Baker in the cited paragraphs of his Declaration addresses the specific disclosure in Chevallier that implements using one command to cause “locking” and the same command to cause “securing.” Chevallier describes: “The secure command used in the present invention, in one embodiment, is also used for another function within the memory device. However, in such an embodiment, the command is written to a different register that is assigned to that particular function.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Thus, there is no “ambiguity” as to whether the command means “lock” or “secure” in any instance because Chevallier uses different registers to distinguish between them. We are not sufficiently persuaded that there is ambiguity in Chevallier’s disclosure to be resolved. Petitioner’s assertion of a motivation that lies in resolving an ambiguity is not sufficiently supported by the record. Petitioner also argues, assuming that there is ambiguity: “A POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that Chevallier’s secure function bit, which enables and disables the secure function, could provide the beneficial specificity—if the secure function is not enabled, then the command results in the lock function; if the bit is enabled, then the command results in the secure function.” Pet. 42 (emphasis added). This argument also is not persuasive. The issue is not whether one with ordinary skill in the art “could” perform an operation but whether one with ordinary skill in the art, without application of improper hindsight, would have reason and want to do so. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, whether one with ordinary skill in the art would want to do in Chevallier what Petitioner proposes is not sufficiently explained. Chevallier expressly states that the secure function it provides is an added feature relative to the locking function. Ex. 1003 ¶ 29. Thus, the two functions are concurrently supported in Chevallier, not mutually exclusively at any one time. The limitation “to redefine the command to allow permanent write protection” as we have construed it above, is contrary to Chevallier’s concept and implementation. Petitioner has not adequately explained why one with ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to modify Chevallier to eliminate concurrent support for both functions. For determining obviousness, the benefits, both lost and gained, in making a modification, should be weighed against each other. Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,827,370
• Roland Corporation v. Inmusic Brands, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 21, 2019 · IPR2018-00396 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Roland Corporation’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of institution on claims 1–21 because the petition did not sufficiently show anticipation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (emphasis added). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot reached

    “02178, 2018 WL 3490804, at *1 (July 19, 2018) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)). Under our rules, the Petition must contain a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence . . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). If the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success, then the Board shall not institute an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“Inter partes review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the petition supporting the ground would demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”). Because Petitioner failed to set forth its analysis of the claimed proportional relationship in the Petition, we are not persuaded that we erred in finding Petitioner’s analysis insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of success on this anticipation challenge.” slip op. at 7

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

    “is proportional to the position of the control shaft relative to the foot pedal control module.” Ex. 1001, 5:32–34, 6:4–6, 6:37–39 (emphasis added). We construed the term “proportional” as “requiring a constant relationship, such as, for example, a linear relationship.” Dec. 16. In so doing, we found that “the claims and Specification of the ’758 patent do not elaborate on [the] nature of the control signal generated by the foot pedal control module beyond describing one embodiment in which the signal is ‘proportional to the plunger 116 position to the drum synthesizer through the cables.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:30–33). We further found that “[t]he prosecution history also does not explicitly define the term ‘proportional;’ however, the Examiner relies on the ‘position-proportional signal’ as a reason for allowance of the claims.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 6). Recognizing that “[a]lthough extrinsic evidence ‘is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record’ in matters of claim construction,” we turned to “certain extrinsic evidence [to] inform[] our construction in the absence of a more fulsome intrinsic record.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In particular, we relied upon “a relevant technical dictionary, namely The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms,” to “show the common understanding that usage of term ‘proportional’ when used to describe an electrical signal indicates the signal maintains a constant relationship, such as, for example, a linear relationship.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 3001, 690, 879–80). We also observed that the dictionary.com “definition Patent Owner proffers supports our construction of ‘proportional’ as requiring a constant relationship.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002). slip op. at 7

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “A Request for Rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments and evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.”). “Because we do not consider an argument made in a request for rehearing unless the request [specifically identif[ies] . . . the place where [that argument] was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply,” we do not consider Petitioner’s newly presented information here. Commvault Sys., Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC, IPR2017- 02178, 2018 WL 3490804, at *1 (July 19, 2018) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)). Under our rules, the Petition must contain a “full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence . . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). If the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood of success, then the Board shall not institute an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (“Inter partes review shall not be instituted for a ground of unpatentability unless the Board decides that the petition supporting the ground would demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”). Because Petitioner failed to set forth its analysis of the claimed proportional relationship in the Petition, we are not persuaded that we erred in finding Petitioner’s analysis insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood of success on this anticipation challenge.” slip op. at 6

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,785,758
• Qiagen Inc. v. Oxford Immunotec Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · IPR2016-01575 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–9 unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to institute an inter partes review only if 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4(a), 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, pursuant to § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’821 Patent, and the Petition is denied. A.” slip op. at 2

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

    “structurally related to the physical substrate holding the printed matter, may not be given patentable weight. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[A] limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information.” Id. If determined to claim printed matter, the limitation is nonetheless given patentable weight “if the claimed informational content has a functional or structural relation to the substrate.” Id. at 851. According to Petitioner, the “CD8+ epitope” limitation claims printed matter because it is merely the content of information, namely “the string of amino acids in a subfragment of ESAT-6 that includes the amino acids that constitute a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 15. Petitioner likens the “CD8+ epitope” to an “instruction limitation” that merely “informs” about the epitope in ESAT-6. Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We disagree. In Kao, the relevant limitation claimed “providing information” regarding a particular biological correlation, which the Federal Circuit concluded had no functional relationship to the following step of “providing” a particular drug treatment. Kao, 639 F.3d at 1072–73. Here, the relevant limitation is “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope.” The epitope is not “printed” onto a physical substrate (i.e., the peptide); it is part of the substrate—the epitope is a sequence of amino acids that is recognized by a CD8+ T cell, and those amino acids are part of the amino acids that make up the peptide itself. Moreover, the epitope does not merely inform someone of purely informational content. Rather, the epitope has a structural and functional relationship to the claims and to the substrate (i.e., the peptide subfragments). For example, claim 1 recites, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope” (emphasis added). The claim further recites, “measuring secretion of a cytokine from said T cells” to determine “whether said T cells are activated by said peptide subfragment.” The specification describes the activation of CD8+ T cells by peptide subfragments that are CD8+ epitopes. See Ex. 1001, 2:30–45. Thus, the CD8+ epitopes are involved in the activation of T cells, which yields immunogenicity (i.e., generation of an immune system response) in the form of cytokine secretion, which is measured as part of the claimed method. The CD8+ epitope limitation is more akin to the attribute data object (ADO) limitations in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1994), where the recited ADOs were processed by a computer and affected how data was stored and organized in a memory. Thus, the CD8+ epitope limitation does not constitute printed matter with no patentable weight. See DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 851. B.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Pet. 22–34. The Petition does not, however, demonstrate sufficiently that Brandt-1996 discloses, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” which is recited in both independent claims. Brandt-1996 discloses the results of a study in which murine (i.e., mouse) T cells were exposed to whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as nine subfragments of ESAT-6. Ex. 1010, 3528, Fig. 3. Whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as two of the subfragments, yielded a response from the T cells in the form of significant IFN-γ release. See id. at 3529–31, Figs. 2, 4. Petitioner argues that Brandt-1996 discloses exposing T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 because it reports a positive response (i.e., heightened IFN-γ release) to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 (also referred to as the “p1” peptide). Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1010, 3531, Table 2). The Petition does not explain, however, why exposing the mice in Brandt-1996 to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 necessarily exposed the T cells to an immunogenic amount of peptide containing a CD8+ epitope. Petitioner’s assertion that a CD8+ epitope is not required by the claims is based on its arguments regarding printed matter, which are unpersuasive as discussed above. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that whole ESAT-6 protein contains CD8+ epitopes and, thus, the “ESAT-6 fragments disclosed in Brandt-1996 necessarily constitute ESAT-6 subfragments that contain a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 23. Only two of the subfragments tested in Brandt-1996 were immunogenic, however, as required by the challenged claims. See Ex. 1010, Fig. 4 (showing responses to the “p1” (amino acids 1-20) and “p6” (amino acids 51-70) subfragments). Petitioner asserts that amino acids 15–29 and 61–82 correspond to murine CD8+ epitopes, but neither of them correspond to the immunogenic subfragments disclosed in Brandt-1996. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1008, 3348 (“Bennekov-2006”)). Although Petitioner also asserts that ESAT-6 contains human and bovine CD8+ epitopes (id.), Brandt-1996 only tested mice and, thus, does not disclose immunogenicity for these epitopes specific to other species. Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,617,821
• Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01658 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable on at least one ground; Sandell anticipation of claims 1–3 and Sandell-Hall obviousness of claim 7 were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find these “definitions” to be substantially similar. For example, both require at least a mechanical engineering degree and experience varying between “some,” in Dr. Brown’s opinion, and “one to three years,” in Dr. Delson’s opinion. Given this apparent lack of disagreement, we adopt 7 U.S. Patent No. 782,156, issued Feb. 7, 1905 (Ex. 1009) (“Meeker”). 8 U.S. Patent No. 4,551,794, issued Nov. 5, 1985 (Ex. 1010) (“Sandell”). 9 U.S. Patent No. 1,842,167, issued Jan. 19, 1932 (Ex. 1011) (“Hall”). Dr. Delson’s statement of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, but we note that our analysis would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “1. “flame silhouette element” In the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “flame silhouette element,” recited in at least claims 1 and 26, as “a body of material having a shape that is suitable to generate a flame flickering effect.” Inst. Dec. 9. In their respective Response and Reply, neither party disputes the preliminary construction of this term. Accordingly, we see no reason to change our construction, which we based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the Federal Circuit’s statement of the disclaimer of “non-chaotic pivoting” and devices “driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns,” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1353–54, is sufficiently specific to determine the scope of the term “pivot” in claim 1 and “pivotally supported” in claim 13.13 Accordingly, we apply the Federal Circuit’s construction that the plain and ordinary meaning of “pivot” and “pivotally supported” applies, 13 We have also considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations (Paper 37), which are substantially directed at obtaining admissions from Petitioner’s declarant in support of its proposed construction of chaotic pivoting (or that Schnuckle ’455 does not disclose chaotic pivoting based on this construction). See id. at 6–13. Although we have considered Patent Owner’s observations, we do not find them persuasive for the reasons explained herein. except that non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns are disclaimed.” slip op. at 17

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

    “consider whether Schnuckle ’455 sufficiently discloses the pivot (or pivotally supported) limitation given the disclaimer of non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns. As noted above, the Federal Circuit specifically determined, at least as a preliminary matter, that Schnuckle ’455 seemed to meet this claim requirement with its discussion of a two-axis gimbal articulated by “chaotic forces” that can articulate the flame element to “randomly simulate blowing in the wind. ’455 patent, col. 6, ll. 53–62.” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1354. We agree with the Federal Circuit’s preliminary determination. Although Patent Owner observes that “‘chaotic’ describes the ‘external or internal force’––i.e., the force entering the system, not the resulting motion” (PO Resp. 20–21), Patent Owner does not address the fact that this driving force is coupled to resulting motion “simulating blowing in the wind” (Ex. 1003, 6:62) and “provid[ing] a realistic flame effect” (id. at 1:54–58). As such, we agree that this excerpt of Schnuckle ’455 satisfies the chaotic pivoting requirement and is not driven by a “rhythmic or metronomic” driving force. Pet. Reply 4 n.1. Petitioner also cites the discussion of “programmable movement patterns” as additional evidence of this fact. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5:52–67 (“The desired movement pattern of the flame shaped surface 326 may be encoded and stored in the memory module 408 of the control board 302 in the form of digital data or control signals.”)). We agree that the column 5 description in Schnuckle ’455 of programmable movement patterns, when viewed against column 6’s description relied upon by the Federal Circuit (Ex. 1003, 6:53–62), suggests the programmed pattern is not rhythmic or metronomic but natural and chaotic.14 Accordingly, we find that Schnuckle ’455 discloses chaotic pivoting as required by claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has satisfied its burden of proving anticipation based on Schnuckle ’455 against claims 1 and 13 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,696,166 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,696,166
• Oracle America, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00377 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 25 because the petition did not adequately show the same memory device met claim 1’s limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground of unpatentability. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). By failing to identify clearly the specific aspects of the prior art that it alleges teaches each of the “memory device” limitations of claim 1, Petitioner has not met its burden. Moreover, our Rule 42.104(b) requires a petition seeking inter partes review to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,” and to explain “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), (4). Here, the Petition does not provide enough information to meet the standard of Rule 42.104(b), which is fatal to Petitioner’s case. See, e.g., T-Mobile USA Inc. v Mobile Telecomms.” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenDenied

    “Petitioner, therefore, fails to explain how Kawashima and Sebastian teach an individual memory device that meets the limitations of claim 1. To the extent Petitioner intended to allege that multiple structures in Kawashima together teach these limitations, the Petition does not explain such an allegation clearly, nor does it explain how or why a person of ordinary skill would have combined those different elements—some from different embodiments of Kawashima—to arrive at the recited memory device and its claimed characteristics. See Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that two embodiments in a single reference could be combined to render a claim obvious where an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine them). Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground of unpatentability. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). By failing to identify clearly the specific aspects of the prior art that it alleges teaches each of the “memory device” limitations of claim 1, Petitioner has not met its burden. Moreover, our Rule 42.104(b) requires a petition seeking inter partes review to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon,” and to explain “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), (4). Here, the Petition does not provide enough information to meet the standard of Rule 42.104(b), which is fatal to Petitioner’s case. See, e.g., T-Mobile USA Inc. v Mobile Telecomms.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner, therefore, fails to explain how Kawashima and Sebastian teach an individual memory device that meets the limitations of claim 1. To the extent Petitioner intended to allege that multiple structures in Kawashima together teach these limitations, the Petition does not explain such an allegation clearly, nor does it explain how or why a person of ordinary skill would have combined those different elements—some from different embodiments of Kawashima—to arrive at the recited memory device and its claimed characteristics. See Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that two embodiments in a single reference could be combined to render a claim obvious where an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine them).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “We decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim construction, at least because Petitioner’s proposed claim construction omits the claimed “memory device” and its relationship to the faster storage limitation. See Prelim. Resp. 13. As noted by Patent Owner, “a claim should be constructed so that each word in the claim has meaning.” Id., citing Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A.1970). Accordingly, no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,116,908
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2016 · IPR2014-01252 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Ulmer and Goldwasser.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Ulmer and Goldwasser. Pet. 35–51. We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed explanation identifying where each limitation allegedly would have been taught by Ulmer and Goldwasser, along with the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hemani. See id.; Ex. 1013; Reply 12–24. We also have reviewed Patent Owner’s assertions and evidence as to why Petitioner’s explanations and evidence are deficient. PO Resp. 17–49; Ex. 2022 (Declaration of Adam Goldberg). On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulmer and Goldwasser teach each limitation of claims 1 and 2.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proffers constructions for a number of claim terms. Pet. 18–24. No claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. B. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 over Ulmer and Goldwasser” slip op. at 6

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

    “there was no motivation to combine Ulmer and Goldwasser. PO Resp. 42– 47. At the Oral Hearing, however, Patent Owner withdrew this argument. Tr. 32:4–11. Regardless, we find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of a motivation to combine. Petitioner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Goldwasser’s disclosure with Ulmer’s because both references “address the same problem: providing simultaneous recording and playback as a mechanism to allow a viewer to skip commercials.” Pet. 25. Petitioner elaborates that due to extensive overlap between the systems of Ulmer and Goldwasser, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use various design details from Goldwasser’s teachings in a combination of Ulmer’s and Goldwasser’s systems. Id. at 25–26 We find that Petitioner’s assertions and evidence provide rational underpinning for a conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ulmer and Goldwasser. And we are persuaded Petitioner’s assertions and evidence show sufficiently that the resulting system would include each of the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the claimed apparatus “further compris[es] a remote control unit, and wherein said keyboard is housed in said remote control unit.” Petitioner notes that Ulmer explicitly discloses that its system includes a remote control unit. Id. at 28, 37, 51. We agree with Petitioner’s analysis of the recited art’s disclosures as applied to claim 2. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 over Ulmer and Goldwasser.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that it would have been an obvious design choice to use play and record buttons on a remote control to control Ulmer’s device. See Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 38). Petitioner has provided evidence that such remote controls were well known at the time of the application for the ’444 patent. See Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 25, 27–28; Ex. 1004); Tr. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 28; Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1008, 2:29–34). Based on this evidence, we are persuaded it would have been within the knowledge and abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to control Ulmer’s device with a remote control that includes play and record buttons.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 5,930,444 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,930,444
• First Quality Baby Products, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-01024 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 25–32 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious in view of Brandon, Anderson, and Long.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues Brandon teaches that training pants should be designed to feel different than diapers to facilitate toilet training, but that replacing its bonded seams by adding refastenable seams such as in Anderson, or adding the containment flaps and surge layer of Long, contradicts that goal by making the training pants resemble diapers. Id. at 36–40. The evidence of record, however, belies that argument. As Petitioner notes (Pet. Reply 13–14), Anderson discloses explicitly that its refastenable seams “approximate the side seams of a normal underpant” (Ex. 1206, 4:27–34), and notes the importance of training pants that “look like a normal panty when first put on by the child” (id. at 2:35–36). Patent Owner’s argument also is unpersuasive with respect to Brandon because it only relies on the conclusory testimony of its declarant. PO Resp. 37–38. On this issue, Mr. Butterworth’s Declaration only states conclusorily that adding a surge layer or containment flaps “would render the garment closer to a conventional disposable diaper.” Ex. 2206 ¶ 79. Compared to the evidence Petitioner cites to support its asserted rationale for combining the references, which we find compelling, we give little weight to this portion of Mr. Butterworth’s testimony because the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, if any, were not disclosed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.” slip op. at 20

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “all related evidence is irrelevant. See id. Rule 401 states that evidence is relevant if “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Petitioner does not dispute that the evidence in question pertains to facts underlying Patent Owner’s contentions regarding secondary considerations. Whether Patent Owner failed to provide sufficient evidence or neglected to supply all of the necessary analysis does not negate the relevance of that evidence. In addition, we note that Petitioner’s motion is moot because of our decision above that the challenged claims are unpatentable even considering this evidence. This portion of the Motion is denied.” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “8 Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had two to four years of work experience in product design and testing of disposable absorbent articles, such as diapers and training pants. Pet. 13–14; PO Resp. 7. We adopt this characterization and apply it to our analysis.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionTerm construed patent owner constructionMixed

    “claimed training pants “can further include releasable side bonds . . . for improved reliability of maintaining the pant in a prefastened condition particularly when it is being pulled on or off over the hips of the wearer.” Ex. 1201, 20:1–4. In addition, the specification states: “The absorbent articles are desirably pre-fastened to provide a pant-like product for the user. The product can then be pulled on like a conventional training pant . . . .” Id. at 5:31–34. The specification does not describe any manufacturing process for prefastening training pants. Mr. Butterworth’s testimony is based solely on claim language indicating that the recited fastening components and mating fastening components are the elements that are prefastened. Ex. 2206 ¶ 50. His conclusion, however, is not supported by that claim language, which does not reference manufacturing or a timeframe prior to sale. See Ex. 1214, 99:13–16, 102:25–103:9 (Mr. Butterworth indicating at his deposition that the ’379 patent does not discuss a manufacturing process for prefastening the claimed training pant, or when the training pants are prefastened).6 Based on the record presented, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “prefastened” in light of the specification requires that the claimed training pant be fastened prior to wear, but does not require fastening during manufacturing or prior to sale.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 8,747,379 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,747,379

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.