• JSR Corporation / JSR Life Sciences, LLC v. Cytiva Bioprocess R&D ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00044 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, 18–20, and 23–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 17 were not shown unpatentable because the art did not establish expected Fab binding.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; (2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and (3) an understanding of the various factors involved in purifying proteins using chromatography.[] Such a person would have had multiple years of experience with affinity ligand design and protein purification. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–14). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed and appears consistent with the Specification and art of record, we apply it here.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that based on Patent Owner’s implicit construction in the district court litigation “that the term ‘the ligand comprising at least two polypeptides’ refers to a multimeric ligand (such as a tetramer) comprised of multiple polypeptides, each of which is a monomer.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 41, 50, 58, 62, 74, 87).” slip op. at 13

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

    “knowledge that any one of the five SPA IgG binding domains are known to bind IgG and can function as a ligand for the purification of antibodies. Linhult and Abrahmsén both expressly suggest that the glycine codon at position 29 can be mutated for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, 2:32–37. Here, the SPA IgG binding domains comprise a short list of 5 members: E, D, A, B, or C. Of these 5 members, the glycine at position 29 in domain B has already been mutated to an alanine to create a domain Z which has been shown to retain IgG binding activity. Ex. 1004, 6 (Fig. 3). Figure 1A of Linhult is reproduced below. Linhult’s Figure 1A, reproduced above, shows the amino acid alignments of the Z, Z(F30A) and the five homologous domains (E, D, A, B, and C). The three boxes show the α-helices. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2. Here, Linhult and Abrahmsén show that the IgG binding domains of SPA – E, D, A, B, and C share many structural similarities. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Fig. 1(a) (reproduced above)); Ex. 1005, 3:25–35. As discussed in our Institution Decision (Dec. 30–31), there are a finite number—five (5)—SPA IgG binding domains and each possesses the dipeptide sequence Asp-Gly known to a be a target for alkaline protein degradation. Therefore, the solution of mutating the glycine at position 29 for an alanine to remove the alkaline sensitive sequence is not a product of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). It is well established that [s]tructural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties. In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 37

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

    “Neither claim 1 nor claim 14 recite a need to bind the Fab region of an antibody or that the target molecule is Fab. All that is required by these claims is that they adsorb a target molecule and that you can elute the target molecule from the matrix. The target molecule, therefore, can reasonably encompass IgG. Petitioner’s articulated rationale is that there was an expectation that the composition binds antibodies, including monoclonal antibodies, and therefore, would be useful in a process of for isolating antibodies. Petitioner contends that: A POSA would have also reasonably expected such a combination to achieve a process for isolating one or more target compounds using the recited affinity chromatography matrix given the well-known fact that each individual SPA domain, including the C domain, has affinity for antibodies (Ex. 1004, [1]) as well as Abrahmsén’s confirmation that a G29A mutation on SPA “would not interfere with folding [of SPA] or binding to [antibodies]” (Ex. 1005, 5:13-16). (Ex. 1002 ¶131.) Pet. 25; Reply 8 (“‘A POSA would not have been motivated only by Fab-binding ability, as even Dr. Bracewell agreed that ‘a POSA would have understood that it was desirable to purify monoclonal antibodies for therapeutic use in 2006.’(Ex. 1057, 75:17-76:4, 113:23-114:11, 157:24- 158:9; Ex. 1061 ¶29)”). The law does not require that the teachings of the reference be combined for the reason or advantage contemplated by the inventor, as long as some suggestion to combine the elements is provided by the prior art as a whole. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304 (CCPA 1976); see In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 10,343,142 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,343,142
• JSR Corporation / JSR Life Sciences, LLC v. Cytiva Bioprocess R&D ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00041 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, 18–20, and 23–30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 17 were not shown unpatentable because the art did not establish expected Fab binding.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; (2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and (3) an understanding of the various factors involved in purifying proteins using chromatography.[] Such a person would have had multiple years of experience with affinity ligand design and protein purification. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–14). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed and appears consistent with the Specification and art of record, we apply it here.” slip op. at 13

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

    “According to the Specification, “the present invention . . . relates to a multimeric chromatography ligand (also denoted a ‘multimer’) comprised of at least two Domain C units, or a functional fragments or variants thereof.” Ex. 1001, 7:27–30. The Specification additionally recites that a multimer containing only domain C units can, however, include linkers. Id. 7:39–41. In addition, the Specification describes that “the multimer comprises one or more additional units, which are different from Domain C.” Id. 7: 44–45. Based on these disclosures in the Specification, a multimer is composed of at least two or more monomers. Because Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the ’142 patent’s express construction of the term, and because Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s construction, we apply it here.” slip op. at 14

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

    “knowledge that any one of the five SPA IgG binding domains are known to bind IgG and can function as a ligand for the purification of antibodies. Linhult and Abrahmsén both expressly suggest that the glycine codon at position 29 can be mutated for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, 2:32–37. Here, the SPA IgG binding domains comprise a short list of 5 members: E, D, A, B, or C. Of these 5 members, the glycine at position 29 in domain B has already been mutated to an alanine to create a domain Z which has been shown to retain IgG binding activity. Ex. 1004, 6 (Fig. 3). Figure 1A of Linhult is reproduced below. Linhult’s Figure 1A, reproduced above, shows the amino acid alignments of the Z, Z(F30A) and the five homologous domains (E, D, A, B, and C). The three boxes show the α-helices. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2. Here, Linhult and Abrahmsén show that the IgG binding domains of SPA – E, D, A, B, and C share many structural similarities. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Fig. 1(a) (reproduced above)); Ex. 1005, 3:25–35. As discussed in our Institution Decision (Dec. 30–31), there are a finite number—five (5)—SPA IgG binding domains and each possesses the dipeptide sequence Asp-Gly known to a be a target for alkaline protein degradation. Therefore, the solution of mutating the glycine at position 29 for an alanine to remove the alkaline sensitive sequence is not a product of innovation, but of ordinary skill and common sense. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). It is well established that” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentable

    “Here, the teachings of Linhult, Abrahmsén, and Hober suggest mutating the glycine at position 29 for an alanine in any one of the IgG binding domains of E, D, A, B, or C of SPA in order to avoid protein degradation. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, 5:4–9. We, therefore, agree with Petitioner that the art expressly suggests that the glycine codon can be mutated for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–111). Attaching any one of SPA mutated IgG binding domains E D A B or C to a matrix using “known ligand-construction methods to yield a predictable result[] (e.g., the claimed affinity chromatography matrix)” would have been obvious. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 130). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[w]here a skilled artisan merely pursues ‘known options’ from ‘a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ the resulting invention is obvious under Section 103.” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Linhult Abrahmsén, and Hober expressly suggests mutating the glycine codon for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–111). We also agree that the cited art teaches using these mutant SPA domains in column chromatography for the isolation of antibodies.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,343,142 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,343,142
• JSR Corporation / JSR Life Sciences, LLC v. Cytiva Bioprocess R&D ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00045 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12–14, 16–28, 30–32, and 34–37 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 29 were not shown unpatentable because the art did not establish expected Fab binding.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; (2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and (3) an understanding of the various factors involved in purifying proteins using chromatography.[] Such a person would have had multiple years of experience with affinity ligand design and protein purification. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–14). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed and appears consistent with the Specification and art of record, we apply it here. C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “support, the ligand capable of binding the one or more target compound(s) and comprising at least two polypeptides.” Ex. 1001, 15:46–49; 17:28–31. Petitioner argues that “‘the ligand comprising at least two polypeptides’ refers to a multimeric ligand (such as a tetramer) comprised of multiple polypeptides, each of which is a monomer.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 43–45). Petitioner argues that this construction is consistent with Patent Owner’s implicit construction in the Delaware litigation between the parties. Id. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s claim construction. See generally PO Resp. According to the Specification, “the present invention . . . relates to a multimeric chromatography ligand (also denoted a ‘multimer’) comprised of at least two domain C units, or a functional fragments [sic] or variants thereof.” Ex. 1001, 7:35–38. The Specification additionally recites that a multimer containing only domain C units can, however, include linkers. Id. at 7:39–41. In addition, the Specification describes that “the multimer comprises one or more additional units, which are different from Domain C.” Id. at 7:52–53. Based on these disclosures in the Specification, a multimer is composed of at least two or more monomers. Because Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the ’007 patent’s express construction of the term, we apply that construction for the purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner’s articulated obviousness ground is premised on the knowledge that any one of the five SPA IgG binding domains are known to bind IgG and can function as a ligand for the purification of antibodies. Linhult and Abrahmsén both expressly suggest that the glycine codon at position 29 can be mutated for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, 2:32–37. Here, the SPA IgG binding domains comprise a short list of 5 members: E, D, A, B, or C. Of these 5 members, the glycine at position 29 in domain B has already been mutated to an alanine to create a domain Z which has been shown to retain IgG binding activity. Ex. 1004, 6 (Fig. 3). Figure 1A of Linhult is reproduced below. Linhult’s Figure 1A, reproduced above, shows the amino acid alignments of the Z, Z(F30A) and the five homologous domains (E, D, A, B, and C). The three boxes show the α-helices. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2. Here, Linhult and Abrahmsén show that the IgG binding domains of SPA – E, D, A, B, or C share many structural similarities. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Fig. 1(a) (reproduced above)); Ex. 1005, 3:25–35. As discussed in our Institution Decision (Dec. 30–31), there are a finite number – five (5) – SPA IgG binding domains and each possesses the dipeptide sequence Asp-Gly known to a be a target for alkaline protein degradation. Therefore, the solution of mutating the glycine at position 29 for an alanine to remove the alkaline sensitive sequence is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). It is well established that” slip op. at 38

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

    “(c) No Teaching Away We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the art teaches away from the G29A substitution because it interferes with Fab binding. See PO Resp. 39–42; Sur-reply 9; Ex. 2009 at 2; Ex. 2010 at 25; Ex. 2012 at 25–26; Ex. 2029 at 7. None of claims 1, 2, or 20 recite a need to bind the Fab region of an antibody or that the target molecule is Fab. All that is required by these claims is that they adsorb a target molecule and that you can elute the target molecule from the matrix. The target molecule, therefore, can reasonably encompass IgG.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 10,875,007 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,875,007
• JSR Corporation / JSR Life Sciences, LLC v. Cytiva Bioprocess R&D ABSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00042 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12–14, 16–28, 30–32, and 34–37 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 29 were not shown unpatentable because Fab binding was not predictable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; (2) several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and (3) an understanding of the various factors involved in purifying proteins using chromatography.[] Such a person would have had multiple years of experience with affinity ligand design and protein purification. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–14). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is unopposed and appears consistent with the Specification and art of record, we apply it here. C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “According to the Specification, “the present invention . . . relates to a multimeric chromatography ligand (also denoted a ‘multimer’) comprised of at least two domain C units, or a functional fragments [sic] or variants thereof.” Ex. 1001, 7:35–38. The Specification additionally recites that a multimer containing only domain C units can, however, include linkers. Id. at 7:39–41. In addition, the Specification describes that “the multimer comprises one or more additional units, which are different from Domain C.” Id. at 7:52–53. Based on these disclosures in the Specification, a multimer is composed of at least two or more monomers. Because Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the ’007 patent’s express construction of the term, we apply that construction for the purposes of this decision. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that the express construction of any other claim term is unnecessary to resolve the disputed issues in this matter. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioner’s articulated obviousness ground is premised on the knowledge that any one of the five SPA IgG binding domains are known to bind IgG and can function as a ligand for the purification of antibodies. Linhult and Abrahmsén both expressly suggest that the glycine codon at position 29 can be mutated for an alanine codon in any one of the SPA IgG binding domains E, D, A, B, or C. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, 2:32–37. Here, the SPA IgG binding domains comprise a short list of 5 members: E, D, A, B, or C. Of these 5 members, the glycine at position 29 in domain B has already been mutated to an alanine to create a domain Z which has been shown to retain IgG binding activity. Ex. 1004, 6 (Fig. 3). Figure 1A of Linhult is reproduced below. Linhult’s Figure 1A, reproduced above, shows the amino acid alignments of the Z, Z(F30A) and the five homologous domains (E, D, A, B, and C). The three boxes show the α-helices. Ex. 1004, 2; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2. Here, Linhult and Abrahmsén show that the IgG binding domains of SPA – E, D, A, B, or C share many structural similarities. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Fig. 1(a) (reproduced above)); Ex. 1005, 3:25–35. As discussed in our Institution Decision (Dec. 30–31), there are a finite number – five (5) – SPA IgG binding domains and each possesses the dipeptide sequence Asp-Gly known to a be a target for alkaline protein degradation. Therefore, the solution of mutating the glycine at position 29 for an alanine to remove the alkaline sensitive sequence is not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). It is well established that [s]tructural relationships may provide the requisite motivation or suggestion to modify known compounds to obtain new compounds. For example, a prior art compound may suggest its homologs because homologs often have similar properties and therefore chemists of ordinary skill would ordinarily contemplate making them to try to obtain compounds with improved properties. In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,875,007 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,875,007
• Tide International (USA), Inc. v. Upl Na Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2022 · IPR2020-01113 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Misselbrook, CN ’588, and JP ’902; claims 7–12 were not shown unpatentable because the grounds did not establish motivation to add a disintegrating agent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “relevant to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the type of problems encountered in the art and prior art solutions to those problems. See Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The prior art itself may also reflect an appropriate level of skill. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We also adopt the parties’ position that the preamble of claims 1 and 7 is not limiting beyond the term “granule.” Claims 1 and 7 each recite “[a] chemically stable dry flow, low compact, dust free soluble phosphoramidothioate granule consisting of” the set of ingredients recited in body of those claims. Ex. 1001, 7:44–45, 8:19–20. While the wherein clause describing the dimensions of “said granule” relies on “granule” in the preamble for antecedent basis, none of the other preamble language appears to be necessary to breathe life and meaning into the claim, and the claim body recites a structurally complete invention. See Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that a preamble is limiting if it is “necessary to give live, meaning, and vitality to the claim,” but “is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, we agree with the parties, and the district court in the related litigation, that the preamble language other than “granule” is not limiting.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Moreover, we agree that the transitional phrase “consisting of” in claims 1 and 7 creates a “very strong presumption that the claim element is ‘closed’ and therefore exclude[s] any elements, steps, or ingredients not specified in the claim.” Pet. 5; Resp. 12 (both quoting Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Neither party seeks to overcome that presumption, nor do we see any basis for doing so based on the record before us. Accordingly, we construe the challenged claims to be limited to granule compositions containing only those ingredients recited in the claims. There are no other terms that need to be construed to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. Therefore, we do not construe any additional terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “demonstrating that the “general conditions” regarding the use of these ingredients in such compositions was known. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that any overlap between the claimed and disclosed ranges serves to disclose the “general conditions” of the claim). “Such overlap itself provides sufficient motivation to optimize the ranges.” Id. Moreover, we credit Mr. Geigle’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood because the concentration of acephate was increased the concentration of the other ingredients would necessarily decrease and that a POSITA would have been able optimize these amounts using standard techniques and testing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–113. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that these ingredient concentrations are result-effective variables that would have been obvious to optimize through routine experimentation.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,473,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,473,685
• Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. FMC CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 31, 2021 · PGR2020-00028 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 9–13, and 21–30 are unpatentable for lack of enablement; claims 9–13 also lack written description. Petitioner did not prove anticipation or obviousness of claims 1–7 and 22–31.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider factors including the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology demonstrated by the record, we apply it here.5” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on the complete record developed at trial, we determine that to resolve the disputes herein, we do not need to expressly construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for disputed terms, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Dr. Dayan’s testimony on these points lacks sufficient supporting analysis. In opining that the tested substituents are representative of the steric and electrostatic properties across the claimed substituents, Dr. Dayan merely compares the properties of the tested substituents to each other. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 52–56. He does not expressly compare them to the properties of the many remaining, untested substituents within the scope of the claims. See id.; see also Reply 14 (“At best, [Dr.] Dayan testified that the positive activity . . . at each substituent” suggests that the position is involved in herbicidal activity, “not that the tested compounds were sufficient to provide any reasonable expectation of success as to the billions of structurally diverse compounds covered” by the claims.). And although Dr. Dayan acknowledges that several tested compounds showed no herbicidal activity, he does not expressly explain how he took these compounds into account in nevertheless concluding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect at least some activity across all claimed substituents. See, e.g., Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 54–56 (noting exceptions to herbicidal activity). As one example, Dr. Dayan acknowledges the lack of activity shown in the data for substituents larger than hydrogen at the R6 position, but does not explain the impact of that data on the remaining claimed substituents. See id. ¶ 54 (Dr. Dayan noting that activity is “not as favored by larger alkyl groups” at R6, but nevertheless concluding that “one would expect at least some herbicidal activity” across all claimed R6 substituents). In contrast, Dr. Hunt compares the size and properties of the R6 substituents that showed no activity with the size and properties of other claimed but untested R6 substituents. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 163, 166–68; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 37, 38. This comparison indicates that the majority of R6 substituents are larger than the tested substituents, such that the vast majority of the claimed compounds (i.e., those with compounds having R6 substituents larger than those tested), could have no herbicidal activity. Ex. 1003 ¶ 167; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 12, 37, 38. Thus, we find that the data in the Specification regarding at least position R6 gives a person of ordinary skill in the art reason to doubt that substantially all compounds within the full scope of claim 1 of the ’202 patent would exhibit herbicidal activity. Ex. 1003 ¶ 163; Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 11, 12, 38; In re Surrey, 370 F.2d 349, 355 (CCPA 1966) (“[W]here the applicant seeks to obtain a monopoly in exchange for his disclosure of a group of compounds there should be a disclosure which gives a reasonable assurance that all, or substantially all of them are useful.”).” slip op. at 29

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “We find that the need for iterative QSAR modeling, together with the sheer number of candidate compositions that must be synthesized (each of which would take at least a week to make) for both the modeling and herbicide testing, weighs against enablement, especially in light of the limited guidance in the Specification and the general unpredictability in the art. 3. Conclusion In sum, it is undisputed that claim 1 covers at least a billion compounds. The art is unpredictable, and the Specification indicates that not all of the compounds falling within claim 1 are effective herbicides. See, e.g., Pet. 22 (listing compounds that showed no herbicidal activity). Although the level of ordinary skill in the art is relatively high and the field is mature, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’202 patent does not provide sufficient meaningful guidance or working examples across the full scope of claim 1 to allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine which other compounds across the full scope of the claim have herbicidal activity without undue experimentation.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 10,294,202 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,294,202
• Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A De C.V. v. Honeywell International, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01309 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10–13, 16, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7–9, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for all, or a portion of, the term “Formula I, XCF3(I), where X is a C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical.” Pet. 17–19 (proposing a construction for the term “C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical”); PO Resp. 12–15. Neither party contends, however, that express construction of this claim term, or any other term in the ’808 patent, would impact any of Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s arguments in this proceeding. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “art. Patent Owner, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Bivens, asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had either: “(1) a bachelor of science degree in a specialty area (such as chemical engineering or chemistry) and five years of work experience in developing/testing refrigerants, blowing agents, and propellants, or (2) a Ph.D. or masters of science degree and 2-3 years of work experience.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 21–24). Patent Owner’s identification of a person of ordinary skill in the art is uncontroverted and is consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s identification for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Accordingly, we are persuaded that: (1) Petitioner has identified where every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed or suggested in the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler; (2) Petitioner has set forth reasoned explanations supported by factual underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest filing date of the ’808 patent, would have sought to combine Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the invention set forth in claim 1 of the ’808 patent; and (3) Petitioner has set forth reasoned arguments, supported by record evidence, to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the composition of claim 1.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “patent met a long-felt but unresolved need or were commercially successful, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence to demonstrate these propositions. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18 (noting that “long felt but unsolved needs” and commercial success may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness). Indeed, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence that a mixture of CO2 and a fluoroalkene of claim 1 has ever been used commercially, or that such a mixture was considered by those of ordinary skill in the art to have met a long felt but previously unresolved need.9, 10 See Tr. 51:24–52:7; Pet. Reply 9 (asserting that Patent Owner “has provided no evidence, post- or pre- issuance of the ’808 patent, of the commercial advantages or uses of the claimed compositions”). With respect to Petitioner’s prior patent applications, although Patent Owner initially characterizes these applications as relating to CO2 and partially fluorinated hydrocarbons, Patent Owner later notes that these patents are directed to blends of HFO-1234yf, CO2, and R-134a. PO Resp. 44; Ex. 2024, 12 (arguing in support of patentability that “[t]he specific 9 To be relevant, Patent Owner must show that the asserted secondary considerations are attributable to “the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” Asyst Techs. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Inagaki discloses using compounds within the scope of claim 1 of the ’808 patent as refrigerants. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence that the addition of CO2 to the compounds of Inagaki, or the particular ranges recited in claim 1, resulted in a product that met a long felt but unresolved need or resulted in a commercially successful product beyond what was provided in Inagaki. Thus, we are also not persuaded that there is any nexus between the asserted secondary considerations and the features of claim 1 that are not disclosed in Inagaki. 10 As Patent Owner has not demonstrated any commercial use of the claim 1 compounds for any purpose, or provided evidence that those of skill in the art considered the claimed compounds to have met an unresolved need in the art, this analysis applies equally to the dependent claims of the ’808 patent, which each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. combination of trans-R1234ze and R134a and CO2 simply is not suggested in Singh, let alone in the amounts defined in claim 1”). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why Petitioner’s arguments directed to the patentability of a blend of three compounds, utilized in specific proportions, are necessarily applicable to the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler proposed by Petitioner, or why these arguments are otherwise strong evidence of the nonobviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent. Based on the foregoing, and upon review of Patent Owner’s arguments as a whole, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s proffered objective evidence of nonobviousness is strong or tends to refute Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to the obviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,623,808 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,623,808
• Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. v. University Of Washington And Uab Research FoundationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2016 · IPR2014-00513 · APJ Francisco C Prats · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious over the ’782 patent and Butler; anticipation of claim 10 by Butler and claims 17–18 by the Wong Poster or Wong Abstract was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “substances, including ions. Ex. 1001, 8:45–49. Nonetheless, to detect an analyte, claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, requires its practitioner to compare (1) a first measured ion current obtained from the first liquid medium suspected of containing the analyte, with (2) a second measured ion current, obtained “without an analyte present,” that is, a known control containing no analyte. Id. at 103:42. As claim 1 states, the presence of the analyte is indicated by a reduction in the first measured ion current of 5% or more for at least 1.0 microsecond, as compared to the second measured ion current level without an analyte present. Id. at 103:40–44. Thus, as Patent Owner contends (PO Resp. 3–4), if the ions forming the first and second measured ion currents were considered “analytes,” the comparison required by claim 1, and its dependent claim 10, could not be performed, because removing the current-forming ions to prepare a sample “without an analyte present” (as recited in claim 1) would make it impossible to measure the ion current necessary to perform the required comparison. This conclusion is consistent with Examples 2, 3, and 6 of the ’550 patent, each of which is described as comparing ion current blockades “with and without [a]nalyte” (Ex. 1001, 41:55, 42:27, 45:49), yet each of which uses an ion-containing buffer including potassium and chloride ions to generate the measured current (id. at 41:15–16 (describing all ion conductance experiments as being performed in 1M KCl, 10 mM Hepes/KOH buffered at pH 8)). Accordingly, we conclude that, consistent with the Specification of the ’550 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “analytes” in claim 10 encompasses only those substances detectable by measuring a reduction in ion current of 5% or more for at least 1.0 microsecond, as compared to an ion current level for the Msp without an analyte present, and does not encompass the ions forming the measured ion current, or other buffer components present in the liquid media used in the analyte detection process.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that the term “analytes” in claim 10 does not encompass the ions that produce the ion current that is measured in the claimed process. Petitioner does not dispute 9 Declaration of Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. (Declaration executed Dec. 5, 2014) (Ex. 2003; “Benner Declaration” or “Benner Decl.”). Patent Owner’s contention that the potassium ions in Butler’s experiments form the ion current that Butler measured. See Reply 1–6. Moreover, we discern no error in Patent Owner’s assertion, and supporting testimony of its witness, Dr. Benner, that Butler’s system is essentially identical to the system described in Examples 2, 3, and 6 of the ’550 patent, all of which use the potassium ions to generate the measured ion current. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the term “analytes” in claim 10 does not encompass the potassium ions in Butler’s experiments. Because Petitioner relies on the potassium ions in Butler’s experiments, along with the DNA in those experiments, as corresponding to the plurality of different analytes required by claim 10 (see Pet. 29), we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that Butler describes a process which includes all of the features of claim 10. We conclude, therefore, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Butler anticipates claim 10 of the ’550 patent.” slip op. at 13

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “As provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a “reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” Thus, “a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). One indication that a new issue has been raised in a reply is where a petitioner submits “new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case” of unpatentability of an original claim. Id. In contrast, where evidence submitted in support of a reply responded only to contentions presented in a Patent Owner response, and was not relied upon or necessary to the prima facie case of unpatentability, our reviewing court found no abuse of discretion by the Board in admitting the reply evidence. Belden Inc. v Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, Petitioner contends that, in advancing its new contentions, its Reply merely responds to Patent Owner’s argument that the only substance in Butler’s liquid media that would be considered an analyte is the single stranded DNA tested by Butler. Reply 5, n.3; see also id. at 4 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 17 (Benner Decl.)). It might be true that Patent Owner’s Response argued that the DNA tested by Butler was the only analyte encompassed by claim 10. The basis for that argument, however, was Patent Owner’s response to contentions and evidence raised by Petitioner in its Petition. Specifically, Patent Owner responded that the potassium ions identified in the Petition as the second analyte were not reasonably considered “analytes” under the broadest reasonable construction of claim 10 consistent with the Specification. See PO Resp. 2–9. In its Reply, Petitioner now raises an entirely novel theory of unpatentability, a theory Patent Owner would not have addressed in its Response, as it was not raised in the Petition. We are not persuaded that presenting this novel theory of unpatentability, distinct from that originally presented in its Petition, truly responds to Patent Owner’s arguments about the reasonableness of considering potassium ions “analytes” as that term is used in claim 10. Rather, because the Reply presents new evidence in an effort to raise a new theory of anticipation, we conclude that the Reply exceeds its proper scope. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 15

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

    “To show that Butler anticipates claim 10, Petitioner must show that Butler discloses “every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Petitioner contends that, in addition to the dA50 molecules Butler tested, Butler also discloses two types of contaminants in its experiments that would be considered “analytes”: (1) divalent and trivalent ions, and (2) less than full-length oligonucleotides. Reply 5. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Butler explicitly or inherently discloses that those substances were present in the DNA experiments cited by Petitioner. As to the alleged divalent and trivalent ion impurities, Butler states only that “[i]f these hypothetical contaminant molecules are present in the dA50 aliquots that we add to the cis compartment, then we would observe the correlation between increased blockade rate and the presence of dA50.” Ex. 1003, 107 (emphasis added). Butler’s hypothetical guess at potential causes of ion current blockades does not equate to an explicit disclosure of the presence of those contaminants in its experiments. Moreover, because Butler’s disclosure, at best, suggests that such contaminants might possibly have been present, Butler does not inherently disclose the presence of those contaminants. See Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.”) (emphasis added); In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (“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.”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,673,550 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,673,550
• Norman International, Inc v. Andrew J. Testamentary Trust, Russell L. Hinkley, Sr. (Co-Trustee), And Robert F. Miller (Co-Trustee)Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2015 · IPR2014-00283 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 17 is unpatentable as anticipated by Tachikawa; Petitioner did not prove claim 26 obvious over Tachikawa and Todd because it did not explain how to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In each instance, the specification of the ’192 patent uses the term “inertia” in the context of a window cover system that maintains the window cover at a desired position. We determine that the construction of “inertia” offered by Petitioner is consistent with the use of the word in the specification, and would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean: “a property of matter whereby it remains at rest or continues in uniform motion unless acted upon by some outside force.” Pet. 15. Moreover, as inertia is itself an attribute, or property, of matter, we determine that the word “inherent” does not contribute any additional meaning to the term, or change the way it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

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

    “of Tachikawa’s spring drive for maintaining the position of the cover at different roll-up or roll-down positions.” Pet. Reply 3. In other words, Tachikawa’s spring drive, operating as a constituent element of the window covering system, functions to maintain the window cover at a desired position unless the system is acted on by some outside force. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, as noted in the Petition, Tachikawa’s spring 17 constantly generates a torque in the opposite direction and identical to the torque on an operating shaft due to the load of the blinds acting upon the operating shaft, “which has the effect that the force for manipulating the operating shaft in order to perform roll-up and roll-down of the blinds can be a small constant force regardless of the position of the blinds” (Pet. 29; Ex. 1002, 209). Tachikawa teaches that this also has the effect that “the blinds do not fall spontaneously due to the weight of the blinds if roll-up is stopped mid-way, but are rather stopped at that position by the spring torque.” Ex. 1002, 209. We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Carlson, that “there are three factors that cause the blinds to ‘stop at the midway position’ (i.e. maintain the position of the cover): 1) the spring torque described above, 2) the inherent inertia necessarily present in all mechanical systems, and 3) the friction that is also inherently present in mechanical systems.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 35.” slip op. at 22

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

    “conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the window cover system of claim 26 would have been obvious over Tachikawa and Todd. Petitioner points to elements of both references, maps them to elements of claim 26, and argues that it would have been obvious to modify Tachikawa’s window cover system with a plurality of spring drives “depending on the weight and size of a window cover.” Pet. 31–36. Even if we consider this latter argument to be an adequate reason for combining the elements of the references, Petitioner does not explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would go about combining the elements, or what modifications one of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have made in order to combine the elements. Nor does Petitioner—in the Petition—point to evidence establishing that modifying Tachikawa to have a plurality of spring drives would have been routine for one of ordinary skill in the art. What is missing from the Petition is explicit, “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Patent Owner submitted during prosecution of a related application. Tr. 7:4– 17, 24:6–11. Nevertheless, we agree with Patent Owner that § 42.61(b) “does not obviate the requirement of an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of a foreign document under § 42.63(b).” Paper 45 (Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Exclude Evidence), 2. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we concluded, as discussed during the oral hearing, that it would be appropriate, in this instance, to waive our rules to the extent we would allow Petitioner, within five days from the date of the oral argument, “to submit an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation that was previously submitted” (Tr. 8:2–3), with the proviso that the affidavit “meet the requirement[s] of our rules,” specifically “[42 C.F.R. §§] 42.63, 42.2, and also 1.68” (id. at 8:2–5). Petitioner complied in a timely manner (Paper 50; Ex. 1021). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied with respect to Exhibit 1002, and we shall admit and rely on the exhibit.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,283,192 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,283,192
• Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. De C.V. v. Honeywell International, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2015 · IPR2013-00576 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Inagaki, Konzo, and Bivens; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not suggest isolating or purifying the trans-isomer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “ordinary artisan would not have referred to a HFO as a HFC. Moreover, while we acknowledge statements by EFCTC as noted by Patent Owner, made well after the effective filing date of the ’874 patent, we find disclosures in the ’874 patent itself to be more persuasive on this issue. As Petitioner notes, the ’874 patent expressly defines HFCs as “hydrofluorocarbons” (not limited to “hydrofluoroalkane,” a species of hydrofluorocarbons), and states that HFCs includes HFOs, such as HFO- 1243zf. Ex. 1001, 2:12, 2:61–67; Reply 4–5. In addition, as both parties acknowledge, Example 3 in the ’874 patent describes certain HFOs as “HFC- 1234ze, HFC-1234zf, HFC-1225ye.” PO Resp. 43 (emphases added); Reply 5. We are not persuaded that the descriptions in the ’874 patent of HFCs as “hydrofluorocarbons,” and the use of “HFC” in nomenclature as encompassing HFO compounds, correspond to “sloppy editing,” as Patent Owner contends. PO Resp. 43. Petitioner points us to evidence indicating that it was common to refer to HFOs as HFCs. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1070/1071 (testimony by Dr. Bivens), 109:22–110:16, and numerous patent references). We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that, in the relevant time frame, an ordinary artisan would have understood “HFC” to refer to a hydrofluorocarbon, i.e., a compound comprising hydrogen, fluoride, and carbon, and that a HFO, such as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, would have been called a hydrofluorocarbon, and one would have used “HFC” in nomenclature referring to HFOs.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We find that neither Inagaki alone, nor Inagaki in combination with Konzo and/or Bivens, teaches or suggests isolating or purifying a trans-isomer in particular from Embodiment II, and therefore does not teach or suggest obtaining “at least about 90% by weight” of the specific trans-isomer of Embodiment II in Inagaki. Purifying a trans-isomer would not have been “routine optimization” of amounts of known result effective variables (i.e., percentages of Embodiment II and POE lubricant to use), but would have required an additional purification step of an isomer—a step that Petitioner has not established sufficiently is taught or suggested in the cited references. We conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 of the ’874 patent would have been obvious over Inagaki, in view of Konzo and Bivens.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments in relation to Inagaki or Bivens. For the reasons discussed above, we do not read Inagaki or Bivens as teaching away from the use of POE lubricant with Embodiment II, but rather find the references specifically suggest the combination of such compounds. Even assuming that HFOs and/or POE lubricant were known to be reactive, toxic and flammable, as Patent Owner contends (PO Resp. 27, 32– 37), Inagaki expressly teaches using Embodiment II (an HFO) with a lubricant, and Bivens expressly teaches using POE lubricant with HFC-based refrigeration systems, suggesting the use of POE lubricant with HFO-based refrigeration systems. Thus, any “difficulties” or “problems” associated with such compounds would not have deterred an ordinary artisan from using the compounds, as evidenced by Inagaki and Bivens. Cf. PO Resp. 22, 25, 26, 27, 30–37 (describing alleged “difficulties” and “problems” associated with “stability, flammability, toxicity, reactivity, and miscibility”). Based on the combined teachings in Inagaki and Bivens, we find that an ordinary artisan would have had reason to predict that Inagaki’s mixture comprising Embodiment II, combined with a POE lubricant as taught in Bivens, would have worked as intended, i.e., to transfer “heat to or from a body in a vapor compression system” as recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “As discussed in our Decision to Institute, In re Aller and other case law sets out the general rule that discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that “discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious” (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)). This general rule is not limited to prior art that discloses “amounts that bracket the ranges recited in the claims,” as asserted by Patent Owner. Prel. Resp. 20. Rather, exceptions to the general rule exist where: (1) the variable to be optimized was not recognized as a “result-effective” variable; or (2) results of optimizing the variable, even if known to be result-effective, produced a new and unexpected result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA1980) (stating that “discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art”); In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 652-53 (CCPA 1973) (concluding that use of routine testing to identify optimum amounts of silane to be employed in a lamp coating, without establishing a critical upper limit or demonstrating any unexpected result, lies within the ambit of the ordinary skill in the art). Here, as discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that Inagaki and Bivens indicate that an ordinary artisan would have known that the recited HFO and POE lubricant would be useful components in a refrigerant composition. Pet. 30-34; see also Ex. 1003, 28–29; Ex. 1068 2357–58 (describing Embodiment (II) for use in “[m]ethods to solve the problem” of destructive effects on the ozone in refrigerants, and with lubricants); Ex. 1005, 1:47–49 (describing the use of POE lubricants with HFC-based refrigerants). Thus, the absence or presence of the recited HFO and POE lubricant in at least some amounts was known to be a resulteffective variable in relation to the function of a refrigerant. Consequently, we consider whether the recited weight percentages of HFO and/or POE lubricant would have been “critical,” i.e., provided a new and unexpected result that differed “in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” Pet. 34–35; In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,444,874 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,444,874

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.