• Toyota Motor Corporation v. Cellport Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01422 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims: claims 1–11 lacked a sufficient showing of the claimed network protocol converter structure, and claims 12–21 were denied as a second, delayed petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “network communication means” claim limitation. Claims 2, 6, and 8–11 depend from claim 1 and, thus, incorporate this limitation by way of dependence. A petition for inter partes review “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Because the “first standard network communication means” is a means-plus-function claim limitation, Petitioner is required to show that both the recited function of this claim limitation and the corresponding structure or an equivalent are present in the applied references. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A] challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.”). The Petition does not identify any structure in the applied references that is allegedly identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure of the “first standard network communication means” claim limitation, i.e., network protocol converter 26. Petitioner’s entire argument concerning the “first standard network communication means” of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, is reproduced below: Cao discloses a “first standard network communications means” (i.e., wireless Proxim radio link with base station) that uses Internet Protocol for “presenting information for transmission over the airlink in a first format that is acceptable to a first standardized network that includes the airlink” (i.e., TCP/IP format). See Ex. 1019 at 6; see also supra Section VIII.A.4. Pet. 40. Though Petitioner alleges that the “wireless Proxim radio link with base station” of Cao performs the recited function of the “first standard network communication means,” Petitioner does not compare the structure of the “wireless Proxim radio link with base station” of Cao to the structure of network protocol converter 26. Cited Section VIII.A.4 of the Petition similarly does not address the structure of the “wireless Proxim radio link with base station” of Cao. See Pet. 18–20. Thus, the Petition does not identify any structure in the applied references that is allegedly identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure of the “first standard network communication means” claim limitation. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition fails to show persuasively that the “first standard network communication means” claim limitation is found in the references that Petitioner relies upon with respect to claims 1–11. Thus, the information presented in the Petition is not sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claims 1–11 are unpatentable. 3.” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “The 4½ month delay between Petitioner’s first and second Petitions is problematic for several reasons. First, the timing of this Petition makes consolidation impractical, and, thus, frustrates the interest of judicial economy. The oral hearing in IPR2015-00633 is set for April 14, 2016. IPR2015-00633, Paper 12. Thus, it would not be practical to institute a second inter partes review and consolidate that proceeding with IPR2015- 00633. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). Assuming that Petitioner has shown here a reasonable likelihood that claims 12–21 are unpatentable, two separate trials would be necessary, requiring the parties, as well as the Board, to expend significant additional resources. Second, even if we were to institute a second inter partes review involving claims 12–21, Petitioner might be unable to “maintain” the second inter partes review upon issuance of a final written decision in IPR2015-00633. 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) provides that any final written decision in IPR2015-00633 on the patentability of claims 12–21 would preclude Petitioner from “maintain[ing] a proceeding before the Office . . . on any ground that the petition raised or reasonably could have raised during [the earlier] post-grant review.” Thus, instituting a second inter partes review may result in a significant waste of time and resources for the parties and for Board. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (“This part shall be construed to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”). Third, the timing of the second Petition raises the potential for gamesmanship. Petitioner did not file this Petition until one month after Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response in IPR2015-00633. The timing of the second Petition gave Petitioner the opportunity to preview the arguments set forth in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response in IPR2015- 00633. Petitioner also has not provided an adequate explanation for the 4½ month delay between the filing of this Petition and the filing of its previous Petition. Though Petitioner alleges that it was not aware of Cao “at the time it filed Petition No. 2015-00633” (Pet. 2), Petitioner does not state when and under what circumstances, during the 4½ months that preceded the filing of the current Petition, it became aware of Cao. Cao is a technical paper that was published by a major research university in the United States, and, thus, it is not clear on this record why Petitioner was unable to locate Cao at an earlier date. See Ex. 1019, 1. We further note that Petitioner has not identified any meaningful distinctions between the arguments regarding claims 12–21 in this Petition and the arguments Petitioner set forth in its earlier Petition. For instance, Petitioner does not explain in what ways the grounds asserted against claims 12–21 in this proceeding are superior to the grounds against the same claims and on the basis of which we instituted trial in IPR2015-00633. In view of the foregoing, we exercise our discretion and decline to” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Despite the rebuttable presumption, we do not construe “controller means” as a means-plus-function claim limitation. The presumption is overcome because the claim language does not link the “controller means” to a specific recited function. See York Prod., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Without a ‘means’ sufficiently connected to a recited function, the presumption in use of the word ‘means’ does not operate.”). In addition, the presumption is overcome when the claim specifies detailed structure sufficient to perform any recited or implicit function, e.g., controlling. See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.”); Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Each of independent claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 recites that the “controller means” includes the “processing means” and the “first standard network communication means.” As discussed herein, the processing means and the first standard network communication means are means-plus-function claim limitations that are defined in terms of specific structures disclosed in the Specification. Moreover, the recited “controller” is also a structure that is sufficient to perform any recited or implicit function of the “controller means.” The rebuttable presumption also is overcome because the controller means claim limitation is associated with these structures. Thus, in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, and consistent with the Specification (see Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:29, 6:11–37, 8:1–45), for purposes of this Decision, we construe “controller means” as “a controller.” 3.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “is a means-plus-function limitation is overcome because this limitation lacks an associated function. Prelim. Resp. 13. We agree. The grammatical structure of the claim and, in particular, the fact that the functional language cited by Petitioner appears immediately after the recitation of the “processing means” evidences an intent to associate this functional language with the “processing means” claim limitation. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “processing means” as a means-plus-function claim limitation having a recited function of “controlling the sending and receiving of said information using said wireless device between said first remote station and the vehicle.” “Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. The Specification of the ’074 Patent indicates that the sending and receiving of vehicle information between the remote station and the vehicle is controlled by processor 90 in conjunction with real time operating system 94. See Ex. 1001, 8:1–23, 13:54–56. Data memory 106 is not linked clearly to the recited function because data memory 106 merely stores information, and does not control the sending and receiving of information. See id. 8:45–58, 9:31–45, 10:58–64, 13:8–10, 23–26. Thus, the structure in the Specification that corresponds to the “processing means” is “processor 90 in conjunction with real time operating system 94.”” slip op. at 11

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,732,074
• Legacy Separators, LLC v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2015 · IPR2015-01526 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims 1–17 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Legacy will prevail in challenging any of claims 1–17 of the ’215 patent. We do not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to any challenged claim.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “and second chambers, for restricting fluid flow to generate a pressure drop in said production fluid and to separate gas and liquid as said production fluid enters said second chamber.” Ex. 1001, 4:61–66. Legacy recognizes that this claim limitation invokes the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, and we agree.2 See Pet. 20. Accordingly, we construe this limitation by 2 Paragraph 6 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was replaced with newly designated § 112(f) when § 4(c) of the America Invents Act (ALA), Pub.L. No. 112–29, took effect on September 16, 2012. Because the application resulting in the determining the claimed function and identifying the structure disclosed in the specification that corresponds to the means for performing that function. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[P]aragraph six applies regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or infringement determination in a court.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Lee ’193 discloses the recited means of claim 1. First, Legacy fails to support its contention that diffuser 42 necessarily restricts flow because it increases pressure in the production fluid. Indeed, a diffuser operates in the exact opposite manner—it increases the cross-sectional flow area that a fluid passes through, which causes the fluid to decrease in velocity and increase in pressure. Further, Legacy’s general citation to Dr. Wooley’s declaration fails to lend support to its position. We are directed to nothing in Dr. Wooley’s declaration, other than a conclusory statement that Lee ’193 anticipates claim 1, to lend support to the position that the disclosure that diffuser 42 increases fluid pressure necessarily means that diffuser 42 restricts fluid flow. Accordingly, we find that Lee ’193’s disclosure that fluid pressure increases as it passes through diffuser 42 does not support a finding that diffuser 42 necessarily restricts fluid flow. More significantly, the means-plus-function recitation of claim 1 requires that the corresponding means restrict fluid flow to generate a pressure drop in the production fluid—that is, a consequence of the restricted flow is to generate a pressure drop in the fluid. As Legacy recognizes, diffuser 42 causes an increase in the fluid pressure, not a drop in the fluid pressure as the production fluid passes through the diffuser. See Pet. 27; see also Prelim. Resp. 20 (“On the contrary, . . . the diffuser in Lee ’193 increases the pressure of the fluid.”). Legacy’s argument that diffuser 42 functions to generate a pressure drop in the production fluid is equally unavailing. As an initial matter, Legacy’s position contradicts its position that diffuser 42 increases the pressure in the production fluid. Legacy fails to adequately explain how diffuser 42 can act to both increase pressure in the production fluid and cause a pressure drop “across diffuser 42.” See Pet. 27. Legacy attempts to avoid this contradiction by asserting that “[t]he increased pressure of the production fluid leaving the diffuser 42, in comparison to the reduced pressure in the vented separation chamber, generates a pressure drop in the production fluid entering the separation chamber.” Id. at 29–30 (emphasis added). That is, Legacy argues that the pressure drop function is achieved because the pressure of the production fluid as it leaves diffuser 42 is greater than the pressure in the fluid within the separator section housing centrifuge 44. However, as argued by Legacy, this pressure profile would result in a pressure drop in the fluid across the second chamber, not across diffuser 42. Significantly, the means of claim 1 must function to restrict fluid flow to generate a pressure drop in the production fluid—that is, the generated pressure drop results from restricting the flow in the means.” slip op. at 14

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

    “As discussed above in connection with our analysis of claim 1 as anticipated by Lee ’193, Legacy fails to persuade us that Lee ’193 anticipates claim 1—specifically, Legacy fails to persuade us that Lee ’193 includes the recited means-plus function limitation of claim 1. Further, Legacy fails to explain how Carle remedies this deficiency. Accordingly, on the record before us, we conclude that Legacy has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that claim 5 is unpatentable over Lee ’193 and Carle under Ground 2.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,761,215
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Olivistar, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2015-01216 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Monroe or obviousness over Mangasarian and Walker for any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “1–8, 11–14, 16–23, 29–32, 37, 47, and 48 (Paper 2; “Pet.”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,606,843 B2 (Ex. 1001; “the ’843 Patent”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12; “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” On this record and for the reasons discussed below, we do not institute an inter parties of any claim of the ’843 Patent. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner’s constructions are overbroad. The challenged claims all relate to the archival of monitoring device data either by an archive server (i.e., a computer), or according to according to computer-executable instructions. See Ex. 1001, 13:10–33, 14:61–15:17, 15:20–47, 16:35–61. In the context of computers and computer systems, the term “archival” ordinarily and customarily refers to long-term, persistent storage of computer data.2 In contrast, the term “buffer” ordinarily and customarily refers to memory that temporarily holds information, for example, to account for differences in data flow rates between computer components.3 Similarly, random access memory (“RAM”) is non-persistent memory that temporarily stores data while that” slip op. at 7

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

    “characterized by one or more archival attributes.” Ex. 1001, 13:15–17, 14:65–67. Claims 1 and 29 also require “determining whether the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes of the incoming monitoring data,” and if so, “processing the incoming monitoring device data . . . into a compressed format” and “selectively storing the incoming monitoring device data . . . on a storage medium.” Id. at 13:20–29, 15:3–12. Claims 1 and 29 further require that the “archival attribute from which the archival profile selectively stores incoming monitoring device data is one selected from the group of file type, monitoring device identifier, and monitoring device type that collected the incoming monitoring device data.” Id. at 13:29–33, 15:13–17. Thus, the “one or more archival attributes” recited in the “determining” step of claims 1 and 29 must be “selected from the group of file type, monitoring device identifier, and monitoring device type that collected the incoming monitoring device data.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded that Petitioner has “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For example, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive explanation of why a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the system and method of Mangasarian to include unique data channel identifiers of the type described in Walker. Petitioner’s argument that “both references are directed to monitoring data on a network and storing such monitoring data for later analysis” (Pet. 44, citation omitted) does not explain why it would have been obvious to make the specific modification that Petitioner proposes. The fact that two references both describe monitoring data on a network and storing such data does not, without more, demonstrate that specific combinations of teachings from these references would have been obvious. Petitioner also has not provided a persuasive explanation of why a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use unique data channel identifiers of the type described in Walker as an archival attribute that determines whether the data of Mangasarian is selectively stored. Petitioner’s assertion that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Walker describes an additional attribute of the monitoring data . . . and would have found it obvious to combine such teachings with the teachings of Mangasarian to selectively collect and archive data based on this specific attribute of the data” (Pet. 44, citation omitted) is conclusory in nature, and is not supported by persuasive evidence or argument.8 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its obviousness challenge to claims 1 and 29. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 8, 12–14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 29, and 30” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,606,843
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Olivistar, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2015-01217 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its Monroe anticipation or Mangasarian-Walker obviousness challenges to claims 1, 3, 4, 8–12, and 17–20.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–12, and 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,347 B2 (Ex. 1001; “the ’347 Patent”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12; “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” On this record and for the reasons discussed below, we do not institute an inter parties of any claim of the ’347 Patent. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner’s constructions are overbroad. The challenged claims all relate to a system employs “archival attributes” and “archival profiles” to determine whether to store data in a “data repository,” or a method of “selectively archiving” data that employs “archival attributes” and “archival profiles.” Ex. 1001, 13:11–33, 14:28–46. In the context of computers and computer systems, the term “archival” refers to long-term, persistent storage of computer data.2 In contrast, the term “buffer” ordinarily and customarily refers to memory that temporarily holds information, for example, to account for differences in data flow rates between computer components.3 Similarly, random access memory (“RAM”) is non-persistent memory that temporarily stores data while that data is being processed.4 Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of 2 See Ex. 3001 (definition from Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, defining “archival storage” as “[s]torage media, such as off-line magnetic tapes or disks, used for long-term storage of data seldom accessed, such as transaction history or backup copies of working programs”); Ex. 3002 (definition from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, defining “archive” as “an infrequently used but comprehensive collection of data”). 3 See Ex. 3003 (definition from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, defining “buffer” as “a unit of memory given the task of holding information temporarily, especially while waiting for slower components to catch up”); Ex. 3004 (definition from Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, defining “buffer” as “[a]n intermediate storage area used to compensate for differences in rates of data flow when information is being transmitted from one computer device to another”). 4 See, e.g., Ex. 3005 (definition from Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, defining “random access memory” as “[t]he computer’s primary working memory . . . . In RAM, the CPU can write and read data. Most programs set aside a portion of RAM as a temporary workspace for data so that one can modify (rewrite) as needed until the data is ready for printing or storage on secondary storage media, such as a hard or floppy disk. RAM does not retain its contents when the power to the computer is switched off.”). “archival” does not encompass the storage of data in buffer memory or RAM. This interpretation of “archival” is consistent with the Specification. In particular, the Specification indicates that “archival” data is data that “needs to be maintained for a number of possible uses,” and does not include data that “can be generated, processed, and discarded after its intended purpose.” Id. at 1:20–23. The Specification also provides several examples of “archival” storage, all of which are types of long-term, persistent storage. See id. at 1:26–36 (indicating that archived data may be stored in “storage devices, such as magnetic media and optical media that are directly attached to a computing device generating the data to be archived,” “special-purpose file management server-computing devices [that] function as a storage destination for a number of computing devices,” and “multiple file management servers functioning[] as a storage location for a number of networked computing devices.”). Independent claims 1 and 17 both require selectively storing monitoring device data “if the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes.” Ex. 1001, 13:26–33; 14:39–46. For the reasons set forth above, based on the current record, and for purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded that the claim term “archival attribute” does not encompass an attribute relating to the storage of data in buffer memory or RAM, and that the claim term “archival profile” does not encompass a profile relating to the storage of data in buffer memory or RAM. No further construction of these claim terms is necessary at this time. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “processor.” Ex. 1001, 13:16. The fourth element of claim 1 recites that “the monitoring device data processor determines whether the archival profile is associated with one or more archival attributes of the monitoring device data.” Id. at 13:22–24. The final element of claim 1 recites that “the monitoring device data processor . . . selectively stores the monitoring device data in the compressed format on the at least one data repository.” Ex. 1001, 13:11–33. In order to demonstrate anticipation, Petitioner must demonstrate that Monroe discloses “not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Thus, Petitioner cannot demonstrate anticipation by picking and choosing different “monitoring device data processors” when discussing different elements of claim 1. Instead, Petitioner must identify a “monitoring device data processor” that performs all of the steps recited above. Petitioner fails to do so.” slip op. at 12

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

    “As discussed above, however, we construe “archival attributes” and “archival profiles” to not include attributes and profiles that relate to the storage of data in buffer memory. The Petition also does not provide any persuasive evidence or argument that one of ordinary skill would consider storage of information in packet buffer 208 of Mangasarian to be “archival” storage. Thus, viewing Mangasarian through the lens of Petitioner’s First Perspective, we are not persuaded that the reference teaches an “archival attribute” or “archival profile.” In the Second Perspective, Petitioner alleges that remote probe 107 is a “monitoring device,” and that the processor of protocol analyzer/host 111 connected to the host network interface is a “monitoring device data processor.” Id. at 27. Petitioner also alleges that the network data packets of Mangasarian correspond to the “monitoring device data” of the claims (see id. at 33), that the class code information for data packets corresponds to the “archival attributes” of the claims (id. at 34), and that the filter, classification, and upload routines of Mangasarian correspond to the “archival profiles” of the claims (id.). Petitioner alleges that host 111 (i.e., the monitoring device data processor) uses the class code information (i.e., archival attributes) and upload routines (i.e., the archival profile) to “enable intelligent selection of portions of packet buffer to be downloaded” to host 111. 35 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:3–5; Jawadi Decl. ¶¶ 78–79, 95, and Ex. B cl. 1(b))). Petitioner also asserts that the processor of host 111 “includes sufficient memory and mass storage to store and manipulate the portions of packet buffer 208 that are downloaded for analysis.” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:15–26, 4:61–65; Jawadi Decl. ¶¶ 75, 78, 81, 95, and Ex. B cl. 1(b) & 1(e)). But Mangasarian makes clear that the filter, classification, and upload routines are software that executes on remote probe 108. See Ex. 1004, 5:5, 5:16–33, 5:66–6:13, Fig. 2. Petitioner has not pointed to any description in Mangasarian of filter, classification, and upload routines that control how or where host 111 stores data. See Pet. 40. Petitioner merely alleges that the “upload routines” of Mangasarian cause network data packets to be uploaded to host 111. The uploading of data to host 111 may cause data to be stored in the “working memory (e.g., random access memory or ‘RAM’)” of the host. See Ex. 1004 at 2:17–19, 6:23–31. Petitioner, however, does not allege that this uploading would cause data to be stored in the separate “mass storage” of host 111. Thus, viewing Mangasarian through the lens of Petitioner’s Second Perspective, we are not persuaded that the reference teaches an “archival attribute” or “archival profile.” For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,239,347
• Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Wildcat Licensing Wi, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2015 · IPR2014-00304 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final decision that claims 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Gass.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. DISCUSSION 1. Standard for Reconsideration 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. (emphasis added). When reconsidering a Final Written Decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “selected sequence of fastening” from claim 24 during prosecution necessarily alters the construction of additional terms in the claims. Reh’g Req. 3–6 (discussing “fastening location,” “predetermined sequence,” “fastening monitor,” and “sequence output”). With respect to these claim interpretation arguments, however, Patent Owner again fails to identify where each of these arguments was raised previously.1 Moreover, with respect to the effect of any such disavowal on the interpretation of other claim terms, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked arguments that Patent Owner did not raise previously. Even if we addressed this new argument, as Patent Owner urges we must under Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., it fails. Patent Owner asserts that its clear disavowal may be drawn from a comparison of claim 1 with claims 7 and 11 and the addition of claim 46, which became challenged claim 24, “to focus on one of the important aspects of the present invention, namely the predetermined sequence program requiring a predetermined sequence fastening.” Req. Reh’g 2 (quoting Ex. 1006, 17); PO Resp. 22–23. This, however, does not rise to the level of an unequivocal and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope to narrow the meaning of the claim as 1 New arguments may not be raised at an oral hearing. Patent Owner’s challenge during the oral hearing to Petitioner’s allegedly late submission of a dictionary definition of “location” does not make these arguments part of the record. Reh’g Req. 3–4 (citing Tr. 43:6–18). Patent Owner asserts. See Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Patent Owner also argues that governing case law requires that we consider the prosecution history. Patent Owner notes that, in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., the Federal Circuit observed that the Board “should also consult the patent's prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.” Nos. 2014-1542, 2014-1543, 2015 WL3747257 at *3 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 16, 2015). In this regard, Patent Owner argues that we are bound by the Examiner’s claim construction resulting from Applicants’ disavowal of scope during prosecution. Reh’g Req. 7–8 (citing Tr. 55:17–18); see Tr. 55:13–24. As the prosecution history makes clear, Patent Owner proffered a new claim 46 during prosecution “to focus on one of the important aspects of the present invention, namely the predetermined sequence program requiring a predetermined sequence fastening,” but not in response to any Examiner request (Ex. 1006, 17) unlike the situation in Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC. Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has identified a claim construction resulting from the prosecution history that constitutes a “deal” between Applicants and the Examiner, binding on this panel. See Reh’g Req. 3 (“A deal was made to secure allowance of the claims by specifically amending them to only read on the ‘predetermined sequence program’ embodiment of the specification that requires a predetermined sequence of fastening among locations 52a–52c.”; emphasis added). Even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s arguments that a clear disavowal of claim scope exists in the prosecution history of the ’573 patent, as the Federal Circuit observed, in such a situation, “the PTO is under no obligation to accept a claim construction proffered as a prosecution history disclaimer, which generally only binds the patent owner.” Tempo Lighting, 742 F.3d at 978. Therefore, we are not persuaded that our consideration of the prosecution history was contrary to governing precedent, as argued by Patent Owner, such that it amounted to an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Nevertheless, as Petitioner notes, Mr. Osentoski testified that Gass teaches that its predetermined sequence is programmed “before the operator begins the process of assembly the bolts at the process sites.” Ex. 2032, 15:19–16:2. In response to essentially the same questions presented repeatedly by Wildcat’s counsel, Mr. Osentoski consistently testified that Gass teaches the “predetermined sequence” and “sequence output” claim elements. E.g., id., 19:12–20:5; 21:14–22:2; 27:10–17; 30:2–31:2; 44:2–23. Paper 38, 4. Thus, we were not persuaded that Patent Owner’s characterization of Mr. Osentoski’s response to this question should be read to outweigh Mr. Osentoski’s repeated and otherwise consistent testimony on this point.  Therefore, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked a significant inconsistency in Mr. Osentoski’s testimony.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,763,573
• Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Wildcat Licensing Wi, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 12, 2015 · IPR2014-00305 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left in place its final decision that claims 22–28 were unpatentable under § 103(a).

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. DISCUSSION 1. Standard for Reconsideration 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. (emphasis added). When reconsidering a Final Written Decision, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “claims 7 and 11 and the addition of claim 46, which became challenged claim 24 of the parent patent to the ’831 patent, Patent No. US 6,763,573 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’573 patent”), “to focus on one of the important aspects of the present invention, namely the predetermined sequence program requiring a predetermined sequence fastening.” Req. Reh’g 2 (quoting Ex. 1006, 17); PO Resp. 22–23. This, however, does not rise to the level of an unequivocal and unambiguous disavowal of claim scope to narrow the meaning of claim 22 of the ’831 patent, as Patent Owner asserts. See Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2013).” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Nevertheless, as Petitioner notes, Mr. Osentoski testified that Gass teaches that its predetermined sequence is programmed “before the operator begins the process of assembly the bolts at the process sites.” Ex. 2033, 15:19–16:2. In response to essentially the same questions presented repeatedly by Wildcat’s counsel, Mr. Osentoski consistently testified that Gass teaches the “predetermined sequence” and “sequence output” claim elements. E.g., id., 19:12–20:5; 21:14–22:2; 27:10–17; 30:2–31:2; 44:2–23. Paper 39, 4. Thus, we were not persuaded that Patent Owner’s characterization of Mr. Osentoski’s response to this question should be read to outweigh Mr. Osentoski’s repeated and otherwise consistent testimony on this point. Therefore, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked a significant inconsistency in Mr. Osentoski’s testimony.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “fastening location” is not limited to a single opening, but may encompass a position or site where fastening occurs when assigned its ordinary meaning. See Ex. 1041, 3. Having to make such a distinction between a single opening and a fastening site with more than one opening is negated, however, by the open transitional phrase, [“comprising,”] in claim 22. Because claim 22 uses the open transitional phrase “comprising,” additional fastening operations between the first and second fastening operations are not excluded, as long as the predetermined sequence between the first and second locations is maintained. See CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“In the patent claim context, the term ‘comprising’ is well understood to mean ‘including but not limited to.’”); Ex. 1001, 12:13–16 (contemplating a “plurality” of fastening locations, but [“at least”] first and second fastening locations). Final Dec. 8 (emphasis added). This interpretation does not change the order of the recited operations, but acknowledges that other operations may be encompassed within the scope of the challenged claims. Thus, we have not abused our discretion by misapplying governing precedent. In addition, Patent Owner fails to identify where it made these arguments previously in its Patent Owner Response. Because Patent Owner has not raised these arguments in its Patent Owner Response, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked an argument that Patent Owner did not raise previously.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,062,831
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00828 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30–37, 39, and 40 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley, with Wells or Lovelock added for specified dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Zond’s expert, Dr. Larry D. Hartsough, also testifies that, in the context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles (ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1201, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelOther

    “teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the 10 art” in the context of the ’779 patent,5 we are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the evidence in this record, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony (Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 39–46, 58–59) that magnets, such as those disclosed in Pinsley and Angelbeck, generate a magnetic field that substantially traps electrons in a plasma apparatus. Notably, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generate a magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1201, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Dr. Hartsough acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1223, 20:13–21:1. Both Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony (Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 39–46, 58–59) and Dr. Hartsough’s cross-examination testimony (Ex. 1223, 123:4–13) are consistent with the prior art of record, including the Admitted Prior Art, which recognizes a magnetic field is strongest at the poles of the magnet and weakest in the region at the center between the poles (Ex. 1201, 3:12–13). As discussed above, the prior art of record clearly shows that it was well-known in the art at the time of the invention to use magnets in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons. Based on the prior art of record, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that “the use of magnets and their corresponding magnetic fields to trap electrons . . . was already known in the prior art,” at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1221 ¶ 37.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Here, GlobalFoundries relies upon Angelbeck and Pinsley to show that generating a magnetic field to trap electrons in a plasma apparatus was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 47–49, 52, 54–55. Indeed, both Angelbeck and Pinsley teach the use of a magnet to generate a magnetic field for increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms in a plasma apparatus. Ex. 1205, 2:43–48; Ex. 1206, 1:36–41. Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, also acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1223, 20:13–21:1. Moreover, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generates magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1201, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground 30 state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 120, 140–41. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. X-ray radiation” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00917 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the specified combinations of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley with Gruber or Wells.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding 10 that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the art” in the context of the ’779 patent,6 we are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

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

    “context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles (ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1401, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. 9 Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Here, GlobalFoundries relies upon Angelbeck and Pinsley to show that generating a magnetic field to trap electrons in a plasma apparatus was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 44–47. Indeed, both Angelbeck and Pinsley teach the use of a magnet to generate a magnetic field for increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms in a plasma apparatus. Ex. 1405, 2:43–48; Ex. 1406, 1:36–41. Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, also acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1419, 20:13–21:1. Moreover, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generates magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1401, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1402 ¶ 139. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is 34 consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. Trapping electrons and ions” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00829 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16, 28, 41, 42, and 45 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley; claim 46 is unpatentable as anticipated by Iwamura.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma includes excited atoms and metastable atoms. Ex. 1301, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, GlobalFoundries identifies four claim elements recited in claims 41 and 42 as means-plus-function elements, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but Zond did not proffer any claim constructions as to these claim elements prior to institution of this inter partes review.6 Pet. 17–19; Prelim. 6 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’779 9 Resp. 18–19. We agree with GlobalFoundries that these claim elements are written in means-plus-function form and fall under § 112 ¶ 6, because: (1) each claim element uses the term “means for”; (2) the term “means for” in each claim element is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means for” is not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function. See Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (using the term “means for” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6); Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427–28 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the presumption is not rebutted if the term “means for” is modified by functional language and is not modified by any structure recited in the claim to perform the claimed function); see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (confirming that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6, applies” (citing Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Zond’s argument and Dr. Hartsough’s testimony, however, are predicated on the premise that the gas is fully ionized, containing no excited or metastable atom, before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit inside the chamber. That premise squarely contradicts Iwamura’s 17 disclosure. Notably, Iwamura explicitly discloses that “the first plasma generation unit preactivates the gas and the second plasma generation unit activates the gas and forms activated gas species.” Ex. 1307, 2:61–65 (emphasis added). Iwamura also describes “preactivation” to mean that “the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high.” Id. at 2:34–39 (“[T]he gas reaching the downstream plasma generation position maintains the ionized or near-ionized state, formed by preactivation, i.e., the gas is not yet fully ionized, but its excitation level is high, due to the upstream plasma preactivation.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, if the gas were fully ionized before reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit, as Zond alleges, there would be no reason to have a second plasma generation unit, much less having a second plasma generation unit to generate a plasma inside the chamber. On the contrary, Iwamura explicitly states that “a second plasma generation unit [is] for activating the gas to generate a plasma downstream along the flow path of the gas.” Id. at 2:59–61 (emphasis added). Iwamura further discloses that the gas is activated by the second plasma generation unit—increasing the density and excitation levels of activated gas species and generating a plasma—to improve uniformity and treatment rate. Id. at 8:4–46, Fig. 1. In fact, Dr. Hartsough in his cross-examination testimony acknowledges, and Dr. Kortshagen confirms, that the gas reaching Iwamura’s second plasma generation unit includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1317, 42:9–43:17, 74:2–76:4; Ex. 1315 ¶¶ 25–33, 89. Zond’s contention that a plasma does not include a volume of excited or metastable atoms also is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “A prior-art reference is considered to be analogous if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, regardless of the field of endeavor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id. at 659. In that regard, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Here, the field of plasma generation is not limited to the particular type of plasma chamber disclosed in the ’779 patent, as Zond suggests. On the contrary, the prior art of record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that plasma treatment systems and gas lasers are from the same field of endeavor, and that effects observed in one may be applicable to the other, as explained by Kudryavtsev. Pet. 48; Ex. 1304, 30, 34; Ex. 1302 ¶ 138. In fact, in Pinsley and Angelbeck, the gas is excited in a region between a pair of anode and cathode electrodes to generate a plasma, similar to the ’779 patent. Ex. 1305, 2:31–36; Ex. 1306, 2:45–56; Ex. 1301, 6:21–23 (“Numerous other cathode and anode configurations known in the art can be used with the plasma generator of the present invention.”), Figs. 1–2. In short, both 40 Pinsley and Angelbeck are analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor as the ’779 patent—namely, plasma generation. Additionally, Pinsley and Angelbeck are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’779 patent, at least with respect to generating a magnetic field and using the magnetic field to excite gas atoms efficiently. As we discussed previously, both Pinsley and Angelbeck disclose the application of a magnetic field to improve the efficiency of exciting atoms. Ex. 1305, 2:43–48, Ex. 1306, 1:36–41. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of exciting atoms for generating a plasma.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Globalfoundries U.S., Inc. / Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-01073 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10–15, 17, 18, 24–27, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1001, 1:7–8; 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1017, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to substantially trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1002 ¶ 129. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is 35 beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. Conclusion” slip op. at 35

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

    “Zond’s argument and expert testimony, however, improperly rest on the notion that all of the electrons, in Angelbeck, are lost to the wall. On the contrary, Angelbeck specifically indicates that “[t]he current-excited discharge passed through the gas within tube 10 creates a plasma in which the atoms are ionized and the electrons are freed.” Ex. 1006, 2:54–56 (emphasis added). More importantly, as discussed above, Angelbeck teaches that a magnetic field creates a high density of excited atoms and increases the efficiency of excitation. Id. at 1:36–41, 2:18–20, 2:29–33. Given the evidence before us, we do not discern that Angelbeck criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into using magnetic field to substantially trap electrons. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that a reference does not teach away 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 Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3 (CCPA 1971) (“Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure of non-preferred embodiments.”). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would not have been dissuaded from combining Iwamura with Angelbeck and Pinsley.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “the contrary, the prior art of record shows that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that plasma treatment systems and gas lasers are from the same field of endeavor, and that effects observed in one may be applicable to the other, as explained by Kudryavtsev. Pet. 50; Ex. 1004, 30, 34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 130. In fact, in Pinsley and Angelbeck, the gas is excited in a region between a pair of anode and cathode electrodes to generate a plasma, similar to the ’779 patent. Ex. 1005, 2:31–36; Ex. 1006, 2:45–56; Ex. 1001, 6:21–23 (“Numerous other cathode and anode configurations known in the art can be used with the plasma generator of the present invention.”), Figs. 1–2. In short, both Pinsley and Angelbeck are analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor as the ’779 patent—namely, plasma generation. Additionally, Pinsley and Angelbeck are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’779 patent, at least with respect to generating a magnetic field and using the magnetic field to excite gas atoms efficiently. As we discussed previously, both Pinsley and Angelbeck disclose the application of a magnetic field to improve the efficiency of exciting atoms. Ex. 1005, 2:43–48, Ex. 1006, 1:36–41. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Pinsley and Angelbeck for how to increase the efficiency of exciting gas atoms for generating a plasma.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779

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.