- Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01556 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–7, and 9–16 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined prior art; the anticipation grounds do not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“(a) A party may request oral argument on an issue raised in a paper at a time set by the Board. The Trial Practice Guidelines advise as follows: A party may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (col. 2) (Aug. 14, 2012) (italics added). The rationale in support of the Rule and Guideline is fundamental fairness to an opponent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (Part 42 “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”) It is not just to an opponent for a party to raise an argument not based on the Petition, Opposition, or Reply, or to discuss evidence not in the record. Why? There is no meaningful opportunity for the opponent to rebut the argument or address the evidence. Likewise, the Board is at a disadvantage because judges do not prepare for oral argument based on arguments and evidence not present in the record. To the extent that arguments and discussions took place at oral argument in this case contrary to the principles set out above, those arguments and discussions have not been considered in rendering a decision on the merits.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s “comprising” position. While the regeneration gas can “comprise” elements not set out in parts [A1] and [A2] of claim 1, as reproduced above, part [A2] is restricted to an inert carrier gas. According to the ʼ911 patent, the regeneration gas is substantially oxygen free, albeit the regeneration gas can contain up to one percent oxygen. Ex. 1001A, col. 3:27–29. A regeneration gas containing more than one percent oxygen would cease to be a regeneration gas within the meaning of claim 1. Any reasonable interpretation of “regeneration gas,” consistent with the Specification, would require that the regeneration gas have no more than up to one percent oxygen. In reaching our conclusion, we have not added a limitation from the Specification into claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent; rather, we interpret the meanings of “regeneration gas” and “inert carrier gas” as set out in the claim.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“to doubt that the NOx released by the [Hirota] absorbent . . . [would] be reduced . . . by . . . [the Hirota] process” “provid[ed] there is sufficient reductant present.” Ex. 1056, page 89:18–21. However, Dr. Crocker’s cross-examination testimony does not establish that the Hirota process anticipates the process of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. The issue here is not whether Hirota is operative; rather, it is whether Hirota operates with “an inert carrier gas” within the meaning of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. During oral argument, Petitioner called attention to the wording of Hirota, with emphasis on the fact Hirota does not use the word “shall” or “must” but rather uses the word “is.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 4:7 through page 5:15. According to Petitioner, under a broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the regeneration gas of claim 1 should be interpreted broadly. Id. at page 5:12–15. But, Petitioner previously had agreed that it makes no “difference what the claim construction is here,” (id. at page 3:20–23). We view the “shall,” “must,” and “is” discussion as a formalistic wordsmithing side-show given that the meaning of the regeneration gas is clear from its description in the Specification. We find that Hirota does not describe the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Hirota anticipates claim 1 of the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Likewise, Land justifies a holding that joint inventors Guth and Campbell (Ex. 1004A) are separate entities vis-à-vis joint inventors of the Guth, Campbell, and Wagner ʼ911 patent (Ex. 1001A). Patent Owner maintains that Guth ʼ758 and Campbell’s “work may not be used against [them] unless there is a time bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).” Paper 28, page 19 (quoting MPEP § 2136.05 (7th ed. July 1998)). However, Guth and Campbell’s work is not being used against them; it is being used against the inventive entity of the ʼ911 patent: Guth, Campbell, and Wagner. At oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner stated “[s]o what I’m saying is I agree that Land probably applies.” Transcript of Oral Argument, Paper 56, page 14:19–20. On the record before us, there is insufficient evidence that Wagner contributed to, or is a joint inventor of, the subject matter described and/or claimed in the ʼ911 patent.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 5,953,911 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,953,911 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01558 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Campbell, Saito, and Stiles; the Board found the Hirota, Takeshima, and Saito anticipation grounds insufficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We see no need to repeat that discussion here, and adopt it as written therein. Petitioner has failed to establish that Hirota describes a regeneration gas falling within the scope of the regeneration gas of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent is anticipated by Hirota.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Whenever a ground based on obviousness is involved, the preferred manner of setting out differences is to state “the subject matter of claim x differs from the reference in that (1) …, (2) …., and (n) ….” Vague statements or hints of differences not only burdens the Board, but puts a patent owner at somewhat of a disadvantage with having to guess what any differences a petitioner believes may exit. Reluctance on the part of counsel to “admit” to and identify a difference is hard to understand, given the fact that a difference does not mean the subject matter claimed is non-obvious. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976) (mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s non-obviousness).4 Campbell appears to differ from the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent in that Campbell does not describe an in situ regeneration.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. Discussion While Campbell does not describe in situ regeneration, and assuming arguendo that claim 1 of the ʼ758 patent requires in situ regeneration, in situ regeneration is a well-known technique described by Saito and Stiles. An in situ regeneration in Campbell makes sense because it eliminates a need to discard spent catalyst and permits one skilled in the art to reuse catalytic material. The reuse of catalytic material would have been recognized as significant due to the expense of platinum. Ex. 1056, page 13:20–23. Patent Owner maintains that the catalytic material of Saito and Stiles “is very different from that of the ʼ758 patent.” Paper 29, 4 Petitioner’s failure to clearly identify differences is not consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), which require identifying the grounds “with particularity.” The Petition must specify where each element of a challenged claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). page 29. “There is nothing in either Saito or Stiles to suggest . . . that the regeneration methods of these two references might be succesfully used for regenerating the catalyst/absorber of Campbell.” Id. at page 30.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“balance in favor of non-obviousness, both in the courts and the PTO. Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403 (1902); The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U.S. 275 (1892); Webster Loom v. Higgins, 105 U.S. 580 (1881); Ex parte Artsana USA, Inc., Appeal 2014-004116, 2014 WL 4090808 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2014); Murata Mfg. Co. v. Synqor, Inc., Appeal 2014-001167, 2014 WL 1397381 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2014); Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., Appeal 2013-008232, 2013 WL 5866602 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013). However, in this case, we are unable to credit much, if any, weight, to Patent Owner’s evidence of long-felt need and commercial success. For long-felt need and commercial success to be convincing, there must be a “nexus” between (1) the long-felt need/commercial success and (2) the claimed subject matter. In re Fielder, 471 F.2d 640, 646 (CCPA 1973). Patent Owner’s evidence is bottomed on Patent Owner’s experience with what is referred to as a “SCONOx catalytic absorption system.” Ex. 2006A ¶ 4 (direct Declaration testimony of Thomas Girdlestone). Patent Owner characterizes the claimed method as embodying a SCONOx system. Paper 29, page 37:3–4. According to Mr. Girdlestone, the effectiveness of reducing NOx in a SCONOx system was tested at a turbine facility run at EmeraChem’s then-affiliate Sunlaw Energy in California. Ex. 2006A, ¶ 5. Further according to Mr. Girdlestone, both the EPA and the Cal EPA” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 5,599,758 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,599,758 - Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01673 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds, finding the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1. Our analysis applies with equal force to the remaining claims forming the basis of the Ground 1 challenge.” slip op. at 12
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“found sulfuric acid described as an alternative for ammonium sulfate. But, then one has to ask: “Where has Petitioner set out to prove that a Gogek Example 3 composition with sulfuric acid used in place of ammonium sulfate meets the limitations of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1?” The relevant testimony is that of Dr. Frederick J. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1005, ¶ 84: Gogek renders the . . . [sulfuric acid] limitation of . . . Claim 32 . . . obvious at least because it discloses that the chemical adjunct may comprise sulfuric acid. Ex. 1003, 1:72–2:4. At the time of the . . . invention of the ’827 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a small amount of the sulfuric acid as taught in Gogek to the specific formulation of Example 3 of Gogek in order to acid catalyze the inversion of the sucrose in the molasses to produce additional reducing sugars (e.g., dextrose) available for consumption during curing. Producing additional reducing sugar reactants in situ would help ensure that all of the ammonium cations react with the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar, and allow the reaction to run to completion through the consumption of all reactants. Completing the reaction would also improve the quality of the binder. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sulfuric acid expressly disclosed in Gogek with the ammonium sulfate used in the formulation from Example 3 of Gogek in order to achieve these well-known benefits. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1003, col. 1:72. As is often the case in patent specifications, Gogek does not say why ammonium sulfate is preferred. It is not unreasonable to assume that Gogek had some reason for making the statement. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a non-preferred embodiment may have properties differing from those of a block made in accordance with Example 3 without sulfuric acid. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,039,827 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01683 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not sufficiently show the modified prior-art compositions would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support, even at this stage, a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using phosphoric acid would meet claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“As noted earlier, we can assume arguendo that one skilled in the art more than likely would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate. But, then one has to ask: “Where has Petitioner set out to prove that a Gogek Example 3 composition with a phosphoric acid used in place of ammonium sulfate meets the limitations of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1?” The relevant testimony is that of Dr. Frederick J. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 103: At the time of the . . . invention of the ’827 Patent , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve the manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use a phosphoric acid in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of phosphoric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 34 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenInstitution denied
“1. Failure to articulate a difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift or Gogek and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicate consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition to point out with particularity); 37 C.F.R. § 41.104(b)(4). Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,039,827 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01633 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4–15, 23–26, 28–31, 35–41, 50, 57, 62, 64–67, and 70–72 were anticipated by Gogek.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“C. Anticipation—Inherency The applicable principles are set out in In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999): If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is “inherent” in its disclosure. To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. at 1269 . . . (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). Id. at 745 (italics, except for case citations, added; USPQ citations omitted) The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“However, Dr. Hirsekorn does not explain what one skilled in the art would have understood “fines” to mean in the phrase “asbestos fines” as of the filing date (1 April 1958) or issue date (20 December 1960) of Gogek. Dr. Hirsekorn states that “Superwool 607 was designed to replace asbestos and is equivalent to asbestos for purposes of the insulating blocks made according to Example 3 of Gogek.” No prior art was offered by Petitioner in support of Dr. Hirsekorn’s statement. For example, no literature supporting Dr. Hirsekorn’s belief that Superwool 607 was designed to replace asbestos has been called to our attention. No literature is cited to show that Superwool 607 would have been considered by those skilled in the art to be “equivalent to asbestos” for making insulating blocks or that it would have been obvious to use Superwool 607 in place of asbestos fines to practice the Gogek invention. Certainly nothing in Gogek confirms the “equivalency” alleged by Petitioner. Nor is there any testimony that Superwool 607 is “fines” having particles sizes consistent with the meaning of “fines” as described in the Gogek patent. Dr. Hirsekorn also states that “[u]sing Superwool 607 instead of asbestos [fines] would not materially alter the physical properties of the insulating block and would not affect the amounts of residual ionic species of sulfates, phosphates, nitrates, carbonates, and combinations thereof that are assessed in a leach test.” Ex. 1004, page 20, last sentence of ¶ 48. No explanation is given as to why Dr. Hirsekorn is able to state his opinion, particularly since Dr. Hirsekorn does not address the differences, if any, between Gogek’s “asbestos fines” and Superwool 607. We have broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded witness testimony. 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.”); In re American Academy of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Bronshtein v. Roser, 61 USPQ2d 1745, 1756 (BPAI 2002) (opinion testimony given little weight where underlying basis has not been provided). Section 42.62(a) is applicable at any stage, including during a “preliminary proceeding” which (1) begins with the filing of a petition and (2) ends with a written decision as to whether a trial will be instituted.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“C. Anticipation—Inherency The applicable principles are set out in In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999): If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is “inherent” in its disclosure. To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. at 1269 . . . (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). Id. at 745 (italics, except for case citations, added; USPQ citations omitted) The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,039,827 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01569 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either obviousness ground for the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support, even at this stage, a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using a mixture of ammonium sulfate and sulfuric acid, would meet claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“Gogek renders the . . . [sulfuric acid] limitation of . . . Claim 32 . . . obvious at least because it discloses that the chemical adjunct may comprise sulfuric acid. Ex. 1003, 1:72–2:4. At the time of the . . . invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a small amount of the sulfuric acid as taught in Gogek to the specific formulation of Example 3 of Gogek in order to acid catalyze the inversion of the sucrose in the molasses to produce additional reducing sugars (e.g., dextrose) available for consumption during curing. Producing additional reducing sugar reactants in situ would help ensure that all of the ammonium cations react with the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar, and allow the reaction to run to completion through the consumption of all reactants. Completing the reaction would also improve the quality of the binder. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sulfuric acid expressly disclosed in Gogek with the ammonium sulfate used in the formulation from Example 3 of Gogek in order to achieve these well-known benefits. Agreeing arguendo with Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use sulfuric acid along with, or possibly in place of, the ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of ammonium sulfate with a small amount of sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid in place of ammonium sulfate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 32 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Johns Manville Corporation v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01527 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Gogek inherently disclosed claim 1’s subject matter or that it would prevail on the dependent challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded witness testimony. 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.”); In re American Academy of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Bronshtein v. Roser, 61 USPQ2d 1745, 1756 (BPAI 2002) (opinion testimony given little weight where underlying basis has not been provided). Section 42.62(a) is applicable at any stage, including during a “preliminary proceeding” which (1) begins with the filing of a petition and (2) ends with a written decision as to whether a trial will be instituted. Nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are applicable to IPRs (37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a)), or Federal Circuit jurisprudence, requires a fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness. Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins and Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (lack of factual support for expert opinion may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination). Petitioner seems to argue that, at least at this stage, we should not doubt Dr. Hirsekorn’s statement. But, Petitioner’s argument cannot justify a lack of credible underlying support for its expert’s opinions. A lack of credible underlying support is no justification to put a patent owner to the expense of defending an inter partes review trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (“This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“However, Dr. Hirsekorn does not explain what one skilled in the art would have understood “fines” to mean in the phrase “asbestos fines” as of the filing date (1 April 1958) or issue date (20 December 1960) of Gogek. Dr. Hirsekorn states that “Superwool 607 was designed to replace asbestos and is equivalent to asbestos for purposes of the insulating blocks made according to Example 3 of Gogek.” No contemporaneous documentation was offered by Petitioner in support of Dr. Hirsekorn’s statement. Id. For example, no literature supporting Dr. Hirsekorn’s belief that Superwool 607 was designed to replace asbestos has been called to our attention. No literature is cited to show that Superwool 607 is considered by those skilled in the art to be “equivalent to asbestos” for making insulating blocks. Certainly nothing in Gogek confirms the “equivalency” alleged by Petitioner. Nor is there any testimony that Superwool 607 is “fines” having particles sizes consistent with the meaning of “fines” as described in the Gogek patent. Dr. Hirsekorn also states an opinion that “[u]sing Superwool 607 instead of asbestos [fines] would not materially alter the physical properties of the insulating block and would not affect the amounts of residual ionic species of sulfates, phosphates, nitrates, carbonates, and combinations thereof that are assessed in a leach test.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 48 (last sentence). No explanation is given as to why Dr. Hirsekorn is able to state his opinion, particularly since Dr. Hirsekorn does not address the differences, if any, between Gogek’s “asbestos fines” and Superwool 607. We have broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded witness testimony. 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.”); In re American Academy of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Bronshtein v. Roser, 61 USPQ2d 1745, 1756 (BPAI 2002) (opinion testimony given little weight where underlying basis has not been provided). Section 42.62(a) is applicable at any stage, including during a “preliminary proceeding” which (1) begins with the filing of a petition and (2) ends with a written decision as to whether a trial will be instituted. Nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are applicable to IPRs (37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a)), or Federal Circuit jurisprudence, requires a fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness. Rohm and Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins and Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (lack of factual support for expert opinion may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination). Petitioner seems to argue that, at least at this stage, we should not doubt Dr. Hirsekorn’s statement. But, Petitioner’s argument cannot justify a lack of credible underlying support for its expert’s opinions. A lack of credible underlying support is no justification to put a patent owner to the expense of defending an inter partes review trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (“This part shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”).” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“If the prior art reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may anticipate if that element is “inherent” in its disclosure. To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.” Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 . . . (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. at 1269 . . . (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). Id. at 745 (italics, except for case citations, added; USPQ citations omitted). The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before the trier of fact may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the trier of fact of the fact’s existence. Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). At first blush one might conclude that there is a tension between Robertson’s probabilities and Concrete Pipe’s probable. The tension is resolved if one considers Robertson’s probabilities to mean “may” and Concrete Pipe’s probable to mean “likely.”” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01598 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not clearly articulate the differences or show the proposed combinations would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“D. Claims 3, 16–21, 27, 34, 43, 45–49, 51–56, 63, and 73 1. Failure to articulate a clear difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicates consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition identifies with particularity) and 37 C.F.R. 41.104(b)(4) (set out how claim is unpatentable).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using mono-ammonium phosphate, would meet claim 27 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The testimony in support of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 27 is that of Dr. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 105: At the time of the purported invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve . . . manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a mono-ammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations are correct, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 9, 2014 · IPR2013-00048 · APJ Scott E Kamholz · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 13, 17, 29, 33, 37, 45, and 49 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims are not shown unpatentable, principally because key material-property limitations were not proved.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The evidence supports a conclusion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “moisture” is liquid water—that is, a condition of 100% relative humidity. The written description uses the term “moisture” in a context that suggests liquid water. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 28:65-67 (applying a “wax/water slurry” to surface of sample film in order “to retain moisture”); 35:17-18 (applying heat to remove “moisture” from samples, suggesting removal of liquid water). Moreover, where the written description discusses water in vapor form, the inventors use the word “humidity” or “atmospheric moisture,” but not “moisture” alone. See, e.g., id. at 21:47 (referring to “atmospheric moisture”); 28:48, 60, 65 (referring to “humidity”). The ’189 patent further discloses that a “ribbon assembly can be buried under ground or water for long distance connections, such as between cities,” which is consistent with the proposition that an optical fiber coating must endure long periods of immersion in liquid water without delaminating. Ex. 1001, 67:43-45. In light of the context in which the term “moisture” appears in the specification, we conclude that the inventors used that term in its ordinary sense to refer to liquid water. The ’189 patent, thus, is directed to a coating composition that, after radiation cure, has sufficient adhesion to glass to prevent delamination in the presence of liquid water. We decline to resolve what temperature, or length of time of exposure to liquid water the coating must endure, without delaminating, in order to satisfy the claimed adhesion property. Resolving those conditions is not necessary to our analysis, which focuses on whether Corning’s wet adhesion test, conducted under conditions of 95% relative humidity, is probative of the extent to which a cured coating delaminates from glass when exposed to liquid water.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Corning that the ’189 patent defines the term “stripping temperature” as “about 90°C to about 120°C.” Rather, the patent indicates that stripping temperature is “typically” within this range. Ex. 1001, 13:32-34; accord id. at 14:21-25 (“[F]or most coating compositions the design ribbon stripping temperatures are usually about 90° C. to about 120° C., but may be different depending on the specific design parameters for the particular coating composition.”). This disclosure is too imprecise to serve as a definition. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. The ’189 patent does refer repeatedly, however, to 90°C as an exemplary stripping temperature. E.g., Ex. 1001, 31:14-15, 31:41-42, 50:55. The ’189 patent also identifies 100°C as an exemplary stripping temperature, particularly in the context of measuring change in length. Id. at 14:46-47, 18:44-45. Whatever other temperatures this term encompasses, it certainly encompasses at least the ones specifically identified. See Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.”). The limitation requires no further construction.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“plots is whether they exhibit a linear region of negative slope. Corning argues that they do, and the description in Exhibit 2015 that a region of the Shustack Example I plot showing a “linear relationship” was used to calculate slope bears out this argument. See Ex. 2015, 1. DSM, in contrast, argues that Corning’s plots lack “a substantially smooth linear region” but offers little evidence to support this assertion beyond Dr. Taylor’s statements that the plots “have no linear region from which to measure a slope” and that they lack any “substantial linear region.” See Resp. 31; Ex. 2032 ¶ 86. Dr. Taylor gives no credible explanation for the basis on which he reaches these conclusions. Even if Dr. Taylor provided some underlying facts or data for this conclusion, Dr. Taylor’s statements do not support DSM’s argument that there is no substantially smooth linear region. As between the conflicting evidence on this point, we credit Corning’s evidence, particularly from Exhibit 2015, in which Corning’s Mr. Gleason identifies the region of linear relationship as extending between displacements of 2.76 mm and 7 mm. DSM does not explain why this determination is invalid. We agree with Corning that the plots for Shustack Example I show a linear region of negative slope from 2.76 mm to 7 mm. To be sure, the signal is noisy, and the plots are jagged, but that does not mean that a linear relationship is not discernible in that region.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundNot shown unpatentable
“For these reasons, we credit Corning’s testing evidence over DSM’s. We are persuaded that Corning has shown that Shustack Example I and Szum ’928 Example 5B each inherently possess a fiber pull-out friction within the scope of every challenged claim. 2. “Sufficient Adhesion” As discussed above in section II.A.1, each of claims 1-4 and 9-12” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,298,189 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,298,189 - Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 9, 2014 · IPR2013-00049 · APJ Scott E Kamholz · IPR · Final written decision
Corning failed to prove claims 53–66 unpatentable because it did not establish the claimed change-in-length property and other required limitations for the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The evidence supports a conclusion that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “moisture” is liquid water—that is, a condition of 100% relative humidity. The written description uses the term “moisture” in a context that suggests liquid water. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 28:65-67 (applying a “wax/water slurry” to surface of sample film in order “to retain moisture”); 35:17-18 (applying heat to remove “moisture” from samples, suggesting removal of liquid water). Moreover, where the written description discusses water in vapor form, the inventors use the word “humidity” or “atmospheric moisture,” but not “moisture” alone. See, e.g., id. at 21:47 (referring to “atmospheric moisture”); 28:48, 60, 65 (referring to “humidity”). The ’189 patent further discloses that a “ribbon assembly can be buried under ground or water for long distance connections, such as between cities,” which is consistent with the proposition that an optical fiber coating must endure long periods of immersion in liquid water without delaminating. Ex. 1001, 67:43-45. In light of the context in which the term “moisture” appears in the specification, we conclude that the inventors used that term in its ordinary sense to refer to liquid water. The ’189 patent, thus, is directed to a coating composition that, after radiation cure, has sufficient adhesion to glass to prevent delamination in the presence of liquid water. We decline to resolve what temperature, or length of time of exposure to liquid water the coating must endure, without delaminating, in order to satisfy the claimed adhesion property. Resolving those conditions is not necessary to our analysis, which focuses on whether Corning’s wet adhesion test, conducted under conditions of 95% relative humidity, is probative of the extent to which a cured coating delaminates from glass when exposed to liquid water.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“We do not agree with Corning that the ’189 patent defines the term “stripping temperature” as “about 90°C to about 120°C.” Rather, the patent indicates that stripping temperature is “typically” within this range. Ex. 1001, 13:32-34; accord id. at 14:21-25 (“[F]or most coating compositions the design ribbon stripping temperatures are usually about 90° C. to about 120° C., but may be different depending on the specific design parameters for the particular coating composition.”). This disclosure is too imprecise to serve as a definition. See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. The ’189 patent does refer repeatedly, however, to 90°C as an exemplary stripping temperature. E.g., Ex. 1001, 31:14-15, 31:41-42, 50:55. The ’189 patent also identifies 100°C as an exemplary stripping temperature, particularly in the context of measuring change in length. Id. at 14:46-47, 18:44-45. Whatever other temperatures this term encompasses, it certainly encompasses at least the ones specifically identified. See Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.”). The limitation requires no further construction.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“excluded and given little or no weight. Resp. 45-47; PO Mot. To Exclude 1- 6. We address the admissibility of Dr. Winningham’s testimony below in our decision on DSM’s motion to exclude evidence. To the extent that DSM’s argument goes to the weight to be accorded Dr. Winningham’s testimony, it is not persuasive. DSM identifies no particular instances in which Dr. Winningham’s silence as to the relevant time period for determining who is one of skill in the art weakens his testimony. We agree with Corning that the thoroughness of Dr. Winningham’s testimony outweighs the concern DSM expresses. We also are not persuaded that Dr. Winningham made the admission that DSM argues. DSM’s question appears to address whether Dr. Winningham made any distinctions about the qualifications and experience of a skilled scientist over time, not whether Dr. Winningham based his obviousness opinions on the knowledge of that skilled scientist at the time the invention was made. We do not find Dr. Winningham’s supposed admission determinative on the issue of whether he failed to consider the relevant time period in his obviousness opinions.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In sum, two independent reasons support our determination that the wet adhesion test results advanced by Corning fail to show adequately that the Szum coating has “sufficient adhesion . . . to prevent delamination in the presence of moisture” within the meaning of the challenged claims. First, the wet adhesion test assesses a property of the coating after conditioning at 95% relative humidity, which is not “in the presence of moisture.” Second, Corning identifies no persuasive evidence from which we reasonably can discern that the wet adhesion test evaluates for “delamination.”” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,298,189 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,298,189
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.