• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,599,758
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs V LLC. v. Biogen Ma Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01136 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place its decision not to institute because the petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness theories.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “to be” on page 9 of the Decision. We gave more weight to pre-litigation statement by Kappos than to post-litigation conclusory expert testimony. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that Board did not abuse its discretion in giving more weight to documentary evidence vis-à-vis witness testimony). Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out, the word “appear” is also synonymous with “seem” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appear), and is consistent with our statement that what counts is what is described, not what appears or seems to have been tested. Decision, page 9.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Decision misapprehended or overlooked Dr. Linberg’s statement that the Kappos 2005 dose-ranging study would not have been undertaken unless BG00012 had been determined to be therapeutically active in treating patients with MS and that the Decision cites no substantial evidence for interpreting Kappos in a fundamentally different way. The reference to “substantial evidence” is curious since “substantial evidence” is an appellate standard of review for fact finding. The argument should have been that our finding was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In any event, Petitioner, in effect, attempts to reargue a case it attempted to make out in the petition and fails to point out how we misunderstood Dr. Linberg’s testimony. Petitioner failed to explain adequately in the Petition why one of ordinary skill in the art, based on Kappos, would have understood that DMF was useful for treating multiple sclerosis (MS).” slip op. at 3

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “stating a fact, i.e., that DMF had been determined to be effective, which is why there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. The argument concerning reasonable expectation of success, as pointed out by Patent Owner in the opposition, is new and therefore could not have been overlooked. Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Products, 866 F.2d 1386, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (prescience is not a required characteristic of the board and the board need not divine all possible afterthoughts of counsel that might be asserted for the first time on appeal). Moreover, in our view Petitioner has not pointed out where there is a clear statement in Kappos 2005 that those skilled in the art knew that DMF was useful in treating MS.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “to be” on page 9 of the Decision. We gave more weight to pre-litigation statement by Kappos than to post-litigation conclusory expert testimony. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that Board did not abuse its discretion in giving more weight to documentary evidence vis-à-vis witness testimony). Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out, the word “appear” is also synonymous with “seem” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appear), and is consistent with our statement that what counts is what is described, not what appears or seems to have been tested. Decision, page 9.” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,399,514
• Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00065 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 and 30–58 of the ’813 patent and claims 1–7 and 9–20 of the ’496 patent are unpatentable as obvious under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction of “leak” deviates from the ordinary meaning of the term. PO Resp. 31–33. LSI relies on extrinsic evidence to supports its contention that the ordinary meaning of “leak” as recited in the ’813 and ’496 patents is limited to unintended or fugitive emissions. PO Resp. 33. LSI’s contention fails to recognize and distinguish the express teaching that chemicals of interest from flares, exhausts, vents or blow off valves are expressly described as uses of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 12:17–25. Indeed, one portion of the specification that LSI relies on to distinguish known versus unknown emissions, indicates that the invention is used to survey known emissions of gas from vents. Ex. 1001, 20:28–31; see PO Resp. 34. Although LSI admits that exhaust valves and flares will have known emissions and that the invention is used to survey these structures (PO Resp. 32), LSI argues that the term “leak” does not include the known emissions from these structures, as the ordinary use of the term is limited to fugitive or unknown emissions. We disagree, concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specification describes a chemical of interest that is present in valves and exhausts that have known emissions. Ex. 1001, 12:22, 20:28–32.15 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, LSI’s extrinsic evidence does not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “leak” as used in the specification and claims is limited to only unknown or fugitive emissions. Accordingly, on the full record, we maintain our construction of “leak” as including both fugitive and non-fugitive emissions.” slip op. at 11

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

    “PO Resp. 27. Specifically, LSI argues that “in the context of the full claims, this limitation should be construed to mean that an infringing method must operate to image gas leaks under real-world field conditions, without taking steps to artificially control any variables such as background temperature, wind, etc.” Id. at 25. LSI does not provide any argument or evidence that the patent describes the range of “real-world” versus “artificially controlled” conditions. Instead, LSI’s construction merely seeks to eliminate any conditions obtained in a lab or test setting from ambient conditions in other settings. We are not persuaded that the patent claims’ references to variable ambient conditions are limited to “real-world” conditions. As we previously noted, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed system and method would typically be used outdoors, where environmental conditions change, at the point where a leak may occur. Dec. ’411, 18. For example, in the summer, a chemical of interest may be present at higher temperature than the same chemical of interest in the winter. Id. Similarly, exhaust temperature may vary depending on conditions. LSI admits that “the claim does not specify what the normal operating conditions would be” under given circumstances. Oral Argument Transcript (“Tr.”) 62:23–24. LSI also admits that a smokestack, for example, would have “a different range of normal operating conditions.” Tr. 63:6–8. Because these conditions vary and the ’813 and ’496 patent specifications are silent on the range or limits of normal operating conditions, we are not persuaded by LSI’s attempt to exclude controlled environments from the claimed ambient conditions. See PO Resp. 26–27. We find no support for LSI’s contention that “variable ambient conditions” or “normal operating in variable ambient conditions” is limited to those instances that are not constrained or controlled in some artificial manner. Id. On the full record, we maintain our constructions of “produce a visible image of the chemical emanating from the component under variable ambient conditions of the area around the leak” as meaning “being able to produce a visible image under the ambient conditions of the area around the leak.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “We are not persuaded by LSI’s arguments. The case LSI relies on, Virginia Innovation, is neither binding authority nor persuasive authority. The facts in Virginia Innovation can be distinguished from the facts of the present case, as the prior art in question in Virginia Innovation was not sufficiently shown to be generally on sale to the interested public, and was instead “restricted” to members of a publishing organization, which required membership dues for access. See 983 F. Supp. 2d at 737–38. Indeed, the district court in Virginia Innovation noted that there was no evidence that the document was available for sale to the general public outside of the publishing organization members. Id. In the present case, no membership fee or organization membership is required for access to the Merlin User’s Guide, which testimony shows was available and sold to the interested public as early as late 2000. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–19; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 12–14; Ex. 1016 ¶ 12. Based on the complete record, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that distribution of the Merlin User’s Guide with the sale of the Merlin MID camera shows sufficient public accessibility and distribution. The cost to obtain the camera does not negate the evidence that the camera and accompanying user’s guide was available to the interested public. The testimony evidence shows that the Merlin User’s Guide was available for sale and distribution to the interested as early as 2000. Thus, FLIR has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Merlin User’s Guide was a publicly available printed publication.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “relevant experience with passive IR (infrared) systems in addition to the requisite engineering or physics education. Paper 2, 10–11 (IPR ’065); Reply 19–20. LSI contends that in addition to the requisite physics or optical science/engineering education a person of ordinary skill the art would have experience developing IR camera systems generally. PO Resp. 22. LSI’s contention is that FLIR’s definition of a person of ordinary skill is too narrowly focused on passive IR systems and is evidence of hindsight bias. PO Resp. 23. LSI’s arguments are contradictory and confusing; asserting not only that FLIR’s person of ordinary skill in art is overly narrow and defined as a “specialist in the [’813 and ’496 patents’] specific solution to the problem being solved,” but also that FLIR’s artisan “would not [] have been familiar with the technical problem being addressed by the invention.” PO Resp. 22 (emphasis omitted). Regardless, FLIR argues that the invention would have been obvious under either FLIR’s or LSI’s proposed person of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 20. Based on the full record, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references and the type of problems and solutions described in the ’813 and ’496 patents (Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:34), and includes experience in imaging of chemical gases using IR camera systems generally in addition to the requisite engineering, physics or optical science education. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Moreover, and apart from any differences of opinion between FLIR and LSI on the precise background and knowledge of one skilled in the art, the prior art itself is highly indicative of the level of skill. See id. (“the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . was best determined by appeal to the references of record”). In any event, we do not find that a person of ordinary skill’s understanding of the teachings of the prior art would differ if an ordinarily skilled artisan possessed knowledge of both active and passive IR systems rather than knowledge of passive IR systems alone. See PO Resp. 22–24.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,426,813 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,426,813
• Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00434 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 and 30–58 of the ’813 patent and claims 1–7 and 9–20 of the ’496 patent are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction of “leak” deviates from the ordinary meaning of the term. PO Resp. 31–33. LSI relies on extrinsic evidence to supports its contention that the ordinary meaning of “leak” as recited in the ’813 and ’496 patents is limited to unintended or fugitive emissions. PO Resp. 33. LSI’s contention fails to recognize and distinguish the express teaching that chemicals of interest from flares, exhausts, vents or blow off valves are expressly described as uses of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 12:17–25. Indeed, one portion of the specification that LSI relies on to distinguish known versus unknown emissions, indicates that the invention is used to survey known emissions of gas from vents. Ex. 1001, 20:28–31; see PO Resp. 34. Although LSI admits that exhaust valves and flares will have known emissions and that the invention is used to survey these structures (PO Resp. 32), LSI argues that the term “leak” does not include the known emissions from these structures, as the ordinary use of the term is limited to fugitive or unknown emissions. We disagree, concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specification describes a chemical of interest that is present in valves and exhausts that have known emissions. Ex. 1001, 12:22, 20:28–32.15 Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, LSI’s extrinsic evidence does not persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “leak” as used in the specification and claims is limited to only unknown or fugitive emissions. Accordingly, on the full record, we maintain our construction of “leak” as including both fugitive and non-fugitive emissions.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by LSI’s arguments. The case LSI relies on, Virginia Innovation, is neither binding authority nor persuasive authority. The facts in Virginia Innovation can be distinguished from the facts of the present case, as the prior art in question in Virginia Innovation was not sufficiently shown to be generally on sale to the interested public, and was instead “restricted” to members of a publishing organization, which required membership dues for access. See 983 F. Supp. 2d at 737–38. Indeed, the district court in Virginia Innovation noted that there was no evidence that the document was available for sale to the general public outside of the publishing organization members. Id. In the present case, no membership fee or organization membership is required for access to the Merlin User’s Guide, which testimony shows was available and sold to the interested public as early as late 2000. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 17–19; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 12–14; Ex. 1016 ¶ 12. Based on the complete record, we find by a preponderance of the evidence that distribution of the Merlin User’s Guide with the sale of the Merlin MID camera shows sufficient public accessibility and distribution. The cost to obtain the camera does not negate the evidence that the camera and accompanying user’s guide was available to the interested public. The testimony evidence shows that the Merlin User’s Guide was available for sale and distribution to the interested as early as 2000. Thus, FLIR has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Merlin User’s Guide was a publicly available printed publication.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “relevant experience with passive IR (infrared) systems in addition to the requisite engineering or physics education. Paper 2, 10–11 (IPR ’065); Reply 19–20. LSI contends that in addition to the requisite physics or optical science/engineering education a person of ordinary skill the art would have experience developing IR camera systems generally. PO Resp. 22. LSI’s contention is that FLIR’s definition of a person of ordinary skill is too narrowly focused on passive IR systems and is evidence of hindsight bias. PO Resp. 23. LSI’s arguments are contradictory and confusing; asserting not only that FLIR’s person of ordinary skill in art is overly narrow and defined as a “specialist in the [’813 and ’496 patents’] specific solution to the problem being solved,” but also that FLIR’s artisan “would not [] have been familiar with the technical problem being addressed by the invention.” PO Resp. 22 (emphasis omitted). Regardless, FLIR argues that the invention would have been obvious under either FLIR’s or LSI’s proposed person of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 20. Based on the full record, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references and the type of problems and solutions described in the ’813 and ’496 patents (Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:34), and includes experience in imaging of chemical gases using IR camera systems generally in addition to the requisite engineering, physics or optical science education. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Moreover, and apart from any differences of opinion between FLIR and LSI on the precise background and knowledge of one skilled in the art, the prior art itself is highly indicative of the level of skill. See id. (“the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . was best determined by appeal to the references of record”). In any event, we do not find that a person of ordinary skill’s understanding of the teachings of the prior art would differ if an ordinarily skilled artisan possessed knowledge of both active and passive IR systems rather than knowledge of passive IR systems alone. See PO Resp. 22–24.” slip op. at 23

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

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the [inventor].” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We will not, however, “read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006). LSI’s evidence that the Merlin references disclose an emission based instrument and that Kulp and Strachan disclose an absorption based instrument, does not show that the references teach away from their combination. Indeed, LSI’s citation to the testimony of Dr. Martini does not demonstrate that the Merlin references discourage their combination with Strachan or Kulp. To the contrary, the record shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the filter teachings of Strachan with the camera disclosed in the Merlin references. Ex. 1030, 50:1–16, 84:14–85:19, 87:16–88:19, 160:4–14; see Ex. 1036 ¶ 22. Although LSI’s witness, Dr. Hossack, disputes where the filter would have been placed on a Merlin camera, he does not dispute that Strachan discloses modifying a similar camera to detect gas. Ex. 1030, 50:1–16, 84:14–85:19, 87:16–88:19; 160:4–14. LSI’s argument that the combinations of the Merlin camera disclosed in the Merlin references would destroy the intended functionality of the camera and fundamentally alter its principle of operation is equally unpersuasive. See PO Resp. 49–52. LSI has not shown that modification of the Merlin camera as disclosed in the Merlin User’s Guide or Brochure would no longer be useful for imaging gas as described. We credit the testimony of Dr. Sandsten in finding that the Merlin MID operates on the principles of thermography before and after modification as disclosed in Kulp and Strachan. Ex. 1036 ¶ 74. In addition, modification of such a camera is expressly taught by Strachan and Kulp. Therefore, regardless of whether the possibility of modifying the Merlin MID camera was disclosed in the Merlin references, the combination of Kulp and/or Strachan with the Merlin references teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that the standard filter could be replaced in a passive IR camera, such as the Merlin MID, to improve imaging. See, e.g., Ex. 1030, 50:1–16, 84:14–85:19, 87:16–88:19; 160:4–14; Reply 15. Indeed, Strachan and Kulp both disclose that gas can be successfully imaged by optimizing the spectral selectivity of a passive IR system using a narrow bandpass filter tuned to the gases of interest. Kulp specifically discloses that a cold filter and Strachan includes a Dewar flask for cooling. Ex. 1008, 493; Ex. 1012, 270. LSI’s arguments regarding the modifications of the camera disclosed in the Merlin references fail to address the teachings of the Merlin references in combination with Kulp and/or Strachan. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (attacking references individually cannot demonstrate nonobviousness; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art). slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,193,496 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,193,496
• Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,298,189
• Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2014 · IPR2013-00045 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the wet-adhesion evidence did not establish the claimed adhesion against delamination in liquid water.

  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, 29:5-7 (applying a “wax/water slurry” to surface of sample film in order “to retain moisture”); 35:24-26 (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 21:54 (referring to “atmospheric moisture”); 28:55, 67; 29:5 (referring to “humidity”). The ’666 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, 67:20-22. 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 ’666 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 7

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

    “force required to peel a coating away from a glass substrate, after the coating has been conditioned at 95% relative humidity. Ex. 1001, 29:8-25. The ’666 patent identifies a different test—a water soak delamination test— for evaluating the extent of delamination that occurs when a cured coating is exposed to liquid water. Id. at 28:32-47. In DSM’s view, Corning fails to establish sufficiently that the wet adhesion test, or “[p]eel test,” can “be used to reliably determine what the results of a delamination test would be.” PO Resp. 25. We agree.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “comes forward with evidence insufficient to support an inference that the results of a 95% relative humidity wet adhesion test correspond to an ability to withstand the hydrodynamic forces that effect delamination. Corning argues that Dr. Winningham “has confirmed that a coating composition with an adhesion to glass of either 23 g/in or 44 g/in, as in Szum, would have sufficient adhesion to the glass fiber to prevent delamination in the presence of moisture and during handling.” Pet. 18-19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 88).2 Dr. Winningham’s opinion on that point is unsupported and, therefore, unpersuasive. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 88 (reciting opinion without objective proof). In that regard, Dr. Winningham repeats, verbatim, attorney argument set forth in the petition, but identifies no objective evidence explaining how a wet adhesion value, which indicates a mechanical force required to peel a coating away from a glass substrate, correlates to an ability to withstand the 2 In addition to the experimental test results tending to establish a wet adhesion value of 44 g/in for the Szum coating, Corning points to the reference itself for a teaching that the Szum coating exhibits “an adhesion to glass at 95% relative humidity of 23 g/in.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002, 25:12). hydrodynamic forces that effect delamination. Id. Dr. Winningham’s bare opinion is entitled to little weight in the absence of objective evidentiary support. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (finding lack of factual support for expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination”).” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “At the oral hearing, Corning’s counsel directed our attention to test results reported in Table 3 of the ’666 patent and, for the first time, argued that those results establish “a clear correlation between the films that passed the hot water soak test . . . and films that have a certain wet adhesion.” Transcript 10:15-17. That argument, and Corning’s reliance on Table 3, is not set forth in the petition or the reply. See Pet. 18-19; Reply 2-5. We deem Corning to have waived that argument raised by counsel for the first time at the oral hearing. Cf. Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1320-21 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (arguments not raised in an opening brief are deemed waived). That argument also is unpersuasive because it is unsupported by convincing, objective evidence that explains a relationship between the wet adhesion values and the water soak delamination results reported in Table 3. In that regard, Corning asks us to infer a relationship between wet adhesion values (reported as a grams-per-inch mechanical force) and water soak delamination results (reported as an observation, for example, of slight delamination after 15 minutes) from Table 3. See Transcript 10:15-17; Ex. 1001, 29:50-59 (Table 3). That is a leap we will not undertake in the absence of persuasive evidence, such as a technical article or expert testimony, explaining some relationship between those disparate test results. Pet. 18-19; Reply 2-5 (identifying no such evidence).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,339,666 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,339,666
• Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 1, 2014 · IPR2013-00053 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 35, 39, 44, and 53-57 are unpatentable as anticipated by Murphy; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Corning’s proposed claim construction of “absorption maximum” as unreasonably broad in light of the Specification. Dec. 6. Based on the language in the Specification, the Board explained that [A]n absorption maximum does not include a “wavelength with the highest absorbance on either side of [the identified valley within the range of 240 and 360 nm]” unless that wavelength is also “a point on the curve wherein the tangent to the curve is parallel with the horizontal axis.” Id. After the institution of the trial, the parties did not further brief this issue. The Board hereby adopts its previous construction.” slip op. at 4

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedNot shown unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “factual findings. Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) an embodiment of the invention was constructed that meets all the limitations of the claim-at-issue; and (2) the inventor appreciated that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” slip op. at 8

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

    “patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. According to Corning, examples 8- 13 and a-d of Murphy meet all the limitations recited in claims 35, 39, 44, and 53-57, and thus, anticipate these claims. Id. at 40-46. DSM did not dispute that Murphy meets all the limitations recited in the challenged claims. Nor did it dispute that the effective filing date of Murphy is December 23, 1999. PO Resp. 41. Instead, it contended that Murphy could not qualify as § 102(e) prior art, because the inventors of the ’543 patent made the claimed invention through an actual reduction to practice before December 23, 1999. Id. at 41-55. As evidence, DSM submitted a “Rule 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 Declaration of Timothy E. Bishop,” one of the co-inventors of the ’543 patent. Ex. 2041. DSM also attached Exhibits A, B, and C to the Bishop Declaration as proof to antedate Murphy.4” slip op. at 5

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We find Corning’s arguments unconvincing. Nevertheless, we deny DSM’s Motion to Exclude. Similar to a district court in a bench trial, the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented. See, e.g., Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received . . . .”). Thus, in this inter partes review, the better course is to have a complete record of the evidence to facilitate public access as well as appellate review. See id. (“If the record on review contains not only all evidence which was clearly admissible, but also all evidence of doubtful admissibility, the court which is called upon to review the case can usually make an end of it, whereas if evidence was excluded which that court regards as having been admissible, a new trial or rehearing cannot be avoided.”).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,276,543 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,276,543
• Corning Incorporated v. DSM IP Assets B.V.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 1, 2014 · IPR2013-00046 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable on the stated Edwards, Szum, Shustack, Broer, Jackson, and Botelho grounds; DSM’s motion to amend claims 10–13 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “the motion to amend, are insufficient to demonstrate the patentability of substitute claims 10, 12, and 13. DSM merely provides the aforementioned conclusory statements and relies primarily on Dr. Taylor’s declaration. Dr. Taylor’s testimony is limited to the prior art cited in the petition and, more specifically, to the tests run by Corning on various samples based on those references. See Ex. 2032.3 Dr. Taylor states that he “understand[s] these references include the closest prior art of which DSM is aware.” Id. at ¶ 73. Dr. Taylor, however, does not identify the closest prior art known to him with respect to the substitute claims. See id. Nor does he indicate that the prior art cited in the petition is the closest prior art known to him with respect to the substitute claims. Id. Without indicating that his patentability analysis is based on the closest prior art known to him, Dr. Taylor’s testimony provides insufficient information to establish that his patentability analysis as to the substitute claims is complete or reliable. Therefore, DSM’s conclusion that “[t]he proposed claims are patentable based on the amendments both specific and as a whole” is entitled to little weight. Mot. to Amend 6; see Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in the” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “We find it unnecessary to consider the specific objections to the admissibility of evidence relating to DSM’s Motion to Amend, because 4 DSM points only to paragraph 98 in Dr. Taylor’s declaration to support its assertion that claim 11 is patentable over Edwards, Szum, and Shustack. Mot. to Amend 10. Paragraph 98, however, refers to proposed substitute claim 12. Ex. 2032 ¶ 98. Based on the headings, we have determined that paragraphs 88-91 appear to be the relevant paragraphs. Ex. 2032 (heading prior to ¶ 88, “Proposed Substitute Claim 11 Is Patentably Distinct Over The Prior Art Cited by Corning and the Closest Prior Art Known to DSM”). DSM has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to its proposed substitute claims, even assuming all its proffered evidence to be admissible. Corning’s Motion to Exclude, therefore, is dismissed as moot, because even considering the evidence that Corning seeks to exclude, we have decided the issue in Corning’s favor.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the motion to amend, are insufficient to demonstrate the patentability of substitute claims 10, 12, and 13. DSM merely provides the aforementioned conclusory statements and relies primarily on Dr. Taylor’s declaration. Dr. Taylor’s testimony is limited to the prior art cited in the petition and, more specifically, to the tests run by Corning on various samples based on those references. See Ex. 2032.3 Dr. Taylor states that he “understand[s] these references include the closest prior art of which DSM is aware.” Id. at ¶ 73. Dr. Taylor, however, does not identify the closest prior art known to him with respect to the substitute claims. See id. Nor does he indicate that the prior art cited in the petition is the closest prior art known to him with respect to the substitute claims. Id. Without indicating that his patentability analysis is based on the closest prior art known to him, Dr. Taylor’s testimony provides insufficient information to establish that his patentability analysis as to the substitute claims is complete or reliable. Therefore, DSM’s conclusion that “[t]he proposed claims are patentable based on the amendments both specific and as a whole” is entitled to little weight. Mot. to Amend 6; see Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Nothing in the” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 6,110,593 unpatentable
  Nonecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,110,593

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.