- PTAB · Mar 25, 2026 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–10 and granted substitute claims 11–19 because Petitioner did not prove claim 11 obvious over Torrence and Piepho.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportGranted
“relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Id. “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Ind. Co., Ltd. v/ Int’l Trade Com’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, inventions in the mechanical and electrical-based arts usually involve predictable factors and can be more predictable than other fields, such as chemistry and biology. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970);” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“[c]ombin[e] the tapered region of Piepho with the shaft of Torrence, the tapered region would extend from an uppermost extremity of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 9. But, Petitioner concedes that neither reference discloses a tapered region extending from the uppermost extremity. Petitioner argues that Torrence’s shaft is straight (Amended RMTA Sur-reply 9) and that “[t]he tapered region of Piepho does not extend to the extreme end of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 11 (emphasis added). Because neither Torrence nor Piepho discloses a shaft with a tapered region that “extends from an uppermost extremity of the shaft,” we find that the combination of Torrence and Piepho does not teach limitation 11[a]. We now analyze whether Petitioner provides reasoning with a rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Torrence with Piepho to extend Torrence’s taper from the upper extremity of its shaft. slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - DBR Finance, Inc. v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00291 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–19 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the proposed Whybrew–Strength combinations disclosed the claimed mesh panels with spaced holes.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We question, therefore, whether someone having an education in textile engineering or physics, but no experience in the field of hunting blinds, would be consistent with the level of skill portrayed by the ’535 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that Petitioner’s expert’s experience, education, and qualifications are rooted in textiles, fibers and physics, and sophisticated subjects related thereto. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–20. But his deposition revealed that he has little or no experience in the field of hunting blinds. See Ex. 2038, 8–14.5 5 The same might be said of Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2031, ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1023, 16. However, our obviousness analysis leaned lightly, if at all, on her declarations and testimony.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Mesh Material In the Petition, Petitioner asks that “the term ‘mesh material’” be interpreted in accordance with “a plain and ordinary usage.” Pet. 25. Per Petitioner, the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the term “mesh material” is “a woven material of open texture with spaced holes therein.” Id. Per Petitioner, “[o]ther typical terms used to describe a mesh-like material” are “a screen material, or a netting material, which are believed to be synonyms.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that a mesh material would have an open texture with spaced holes therein. See PO Resp. 18. We find that Petitioner’s proposed construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification. See Ex. 1001. The drawings in the ’535 Patent depict the mesh material 26 as having an array of uniformly spaced circular holes forming a net-like structure (see id., Fig. 1A, 1B, 4, 9) or an array of uniformly spaced rectangular openings (see id. Fig. 8) forming a screen-like structure. The embodiments of the mesh material 26 listed in the ’535 Patent (e.g., a mesh banner material, scrims, a network of fibers, etc.) are materials having net-like or screen-like structures. See id. at 6:47–7:28.6” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Our construction aligns with the claim language; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001, 10:4–19. The independent challenged claims set forth “one or more panels of mesh material” and then set forth “said one or more panels comprising: a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 10:4–11. The recited “said one or more panels” corresponds to the previously recited “one or more panels of mesh material,” not panels comprising a material that was only a “mesh” prior to printing/coating. See id. Also, the independent challenged claims set forth that “the one or more panels of the mesh material define an outer surface of the camouflage structure.” See id. at 10:18–19, 1:23–24 (emphasis added). And the panel(s) defining a hunting blind’s outer surface would include the dark color coating. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001. The ’535 Patent repeatedly describes the relevant panel material in the hunting blind (i.e., post printing/coating) as a mesh material. See id., Abst., 1:19–5:34, 6:47–7:28, 9:16–54, Figs. 1A, 1B, 9. The ’535 Patent expressly describes and depicts the mesh material 26 as including the camouflage pattern and the dark-color coating. See id. at 1:52–56, 3:24–25, 3:31–33, Figs. 1A, 1B. The ’535 Patent says that “panels” of this coated mesh material 26 “are used to form” a hunting blind. Id. at 3:22–26. The ’535 Patent says that “[m]esh material is presented for a hunting blind with a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a color coating.” Id. at Abst. The ’535 Patent says that “mesh material of interwoven fabric is provided for a hunting blind including a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 1:19–22; see also id. at 1:44–49. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s prosecution history; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1006. As mentioned above, throughout prosecution of the ’535 Patent, the same prior art material was mapped to the claimed panel(s) of mesh material. See Ex. 1006, 64–72, 122–106. The mapped-to prior art mesh material was described during prosecution as an “interwoven fabric” with “a pattern” printed on a first side and “a dark color coating” on a second side. Ex. 1006, 64; see also id. at 122. And the mapped-to prior art mesh material (i.e., which included not only the interwoven fabric but also the printed pattern and the dark color coating) had a “net-like structure” with an array of uniformly spaced “net holes” that are “not closed.” Ex. 2021, 4:1–5, see also id. at 2:58–3:6, 4:34–45, Figs. 1, 2a. Thus, we understand that claimed panel(s) of mesh material must have” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proving Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. Rather, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. And Petitioner’s arguments that undermine Patent Owner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes, concurrently undermine Petitioner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. Per Petitioner, “Strength is silent on whether visible holes exist in the fabric” (Pet. Reply 8) and “the Strength reference doesn’t discuss anything about holes” (Tr. 14). Petitioner’s expert testified that it was his “understanding that Strength is silent” on “whether or not there are holes.” Ex. 2038, 44. Petitioner contends that Strength’s silence about the presence/ absence of holes hinders Patent Owner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. See Pet. Reply 8. We agree. But this same silence likewise hinders Petitioner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 11,399,535 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,399,535 - Toast, Inc v. Gratuity, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2023-01408 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Marshall, Marshall and Webb, Phillips and Marshall, or Phillips, Marshall, and Webb.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, to the extent that it aligns with the level of skill portrayed by the ’050 Patent. As discussed above, the ’050 Patent does not does not provide one with any technical direction for making and using a multi-restaurant embodiment that avoids or solves calculation/extraction problems due to disparate client (e.g., restaurant) systems. The ’050 Patent also does not provide one with any technical direction for scaling up and/or transitioning to a cloud-based system. We infer from this that a POSITA would have the education and the experience enabling him/her to effectively and economically handle these tasks without technical direction, despite the problems associated therewith. Put another way, the actual application of these technical endeavors would not be beyond his/her skill. Although Petitioner provides a slightly different expression for the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 9–10), it substantively agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill and adopting Petitioner’s precise level of ordinary skill would not change our decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner presents several pages of argument about claim construction, but offers no proposed construction for any of the claim terms. See PO Resp. 11–18. “Petitioner maintains that no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. Resp. 4. We determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“with a restaurant’s timeclock programs, time and attendance systems, and/or payroll processing systems. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69, 108. Webb discloses that, in a restaurant setting, a POS system can be communicatively coupled to a time and attendance server. See Ex. 1006, Abstract, 24:51–60, Figs. 1A, 1B. Thus, Marshall and Webb describe similar and compatible systems in the same field of art—systems for tracking employee and sales information in the hospitality business. And Petitioner provides evidence that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine these teachings in the claimed manner. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 207–212. Patent Owner argues that Webb “does not cure the deficiencies” of Marshall. PO Resp. 41. However, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner regarding Marshall’s deficiencies. Thus, Webb need not cure these alleged deficiencies in Marshall.10 Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 4–7, 9, and 11–13 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall and Webb. 10 Patent Owner also mentions that there is “simply no motivation to combine Marshall and Webb.” PO Sur-Reply 7; see also PO Resp. 42. But Patent Owner does not address the arguments and evidence set forth by Petitioner.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s client-side-only arguments are overly focussed on the setup disclosed in Marshall’s Figure 3, and, in any event, do not coincide with Petitioner’s citations to Marshall. Petitioner points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s multi-employer 8 The ’050 Patent lists a provisional application filed on September 4, 2012 as a related application. Ex. 1004, code (60). 9 Marshall discloses that “data transfer” can be “data transfer is performed via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 110. embodiment. See Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner also points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s disclosure that the server executing the GrataSoft software can be separate (i.e., not co-located) with the POS server executing the Aloha software. Id. at 10. In Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, these topics remained undiscussed. See PO Sur-Reply 1–6. Both aspects of Petitioner’s contentions support that Marshall’s system does disclose a gratuity management system that is separate and distinct from the client POS servers. Patent Owner argues that there would be problems “associated with calculations of gratuities based on client-specific information extracted from disparate, ad hoc client business systems.” PO Resp. 27–28; Ex. 2006 69–73. Patent Owner also argues that there would be “problems associated with scale-up and transitioning to a cloud-based system, and associated cost and security issue. PO Resp. 27; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 87–91. However, as discussed above, the ’050 Patent portrays that a POSITA would have the education and experience enabling him/her to effectively handle the conversion of a singlerestaurant system to a multi-restaurant system; and to transition to a safe and secure cloud system in a cost/time effective manner. Thus, these problems would not detract from the obviousness of a multi-restaurant and/or cloud-based version of Marshall’s invention. Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 1–3, 8, and 10 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,741,050 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,741,050 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–10 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski and Piepho combination renders claims 1–8 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art relating to the ’568 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less or different formal education and more work experience.” Id. We view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’568 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 14–15. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho and Polinski in the manner Petitioner proposes and further demonstrates that the combination discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. 3. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combination of Piepho and Polinski renders claim 1 obvious. We have also reviewed Petitioner’s arguments addressing claims 2–8. See Pet. 31–40. Based on our review of the current record, Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that claims 2–8 would have been obvious over Piepho and Polinski.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“and Piepho renders claim 1 obvious. For each limitation in claim 1, Petitioner points to specific portions of the references that support its position that the combination discloses the limitations in question. See Pet. 16–31. Petitioner also cites to declarant testimony addressing the limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1002). In support of its combination of Polinski and Piepho, Petitioner argues that both references disclose “gyratory rock crusher[s],” “Piepho further teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint,” and one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) would have been motivated to combine Piepho’s tapered joint with Polinski. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81; Ex. 1015, 1010; Ex. 1016, 3:24–35). According to Petitioner, “Piepho teaches the interchangeability between a cylindrical joint and a tapered joint” and “a POSITA would understand the advantages afforded by the use of a tapered joint as compared with a cylindrical joint,” including the fact that “tapered interference joints, while more expensive to manufacture, provide[] advantages in assembly, alignment, and fit-up.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 80–81).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01381 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–14 based on a reasonable likelihood that the Polinski, Piepho, and Harless combination renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under § 314, 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 challenged claims in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) relating to the ’090 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a related field, and at least 2 years of experience with industrial equipment design and development.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Petitioner also contends that one of ordinary skill “may also have a combination of more formal education and less work experience or a combination of less/different formal education and more work experience.” Id. Patent Owner states that, for purposes of its Preliminary Response, it “does not object to Petitioner’s position on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). At this stage, and based on Petitioner’s undisputed contentions, we view Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’090 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that “[n]o terms need construction because the claims read on the prior art identified below under any construction consistent with Phillips.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner “submits that the Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are patentable under any reasonable construction.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Based on the record before us, we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s combination of Polinski and Piepho, but instead argues that no motivation to combine exists because Harless “would render both Polinski and Piepho inoperable for their intended purpose of preventing shaft failure.” Prelim. Resp. 22–31 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). When addressing intended purpose, Patent Owner argues that “Polinski mitigates shaft fatigue failure . . . specifically by omitting threads that are typically cut into gyratory shafts to attach a crusher mantle.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:61–67). Patent Owner asserts that Polinski instead teaches that shaft stress can be reduced “by cutting threads into a bearing sleeve.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1017, 1:1–67). Piepho, according to Patent Owner, seeks a similar goal: “to prevent fretting wear and corresponding fatigue,” by “coating a portion of the shaft fit into a yoke bushing (which Petitioner alleges is a sleeve) with a ceramic coating.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1007, 2:15–25; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43). Patent Owner argues that introducing Harless’s groove onto the main shaft would undermine the purposes of Piepho and Polinski because these would “introduce stress concentrations,” “lead to increased fretting wear,” and “increase the likelihood of fatigue failure.” Id. at 24–29. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s approach relies on impermissible hindsight because one of ordinary skill would not seek to rely on Harless’s grooved shaft for use in “mounting of gears and similar components” rather than “for crushing applications, much less in a gyratory crusher, as claimed.” Id. at 30. According to Patent Owner, Harless fails to disclose “that its shaft is subjected to the same substantial stresses generated by the cyclic loading as the shafts disclosed by Polinski and Piepho.” Id. As to Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would be motivated to make the combination to simplify the equipment and process for interference fits, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner impermissibly picks and chooses aspects of the three references” and ignores what they teach to a POSITA, namely that “Polinski and Piepho are both directed to mitigating shaft fatigue” and adding Harless’s oil groove introduces several problems, as noted above. Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 48–59). Based on the current record, Petitioner sufficiently establishes for the purposes of institution that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piepho, Polinski, and Harless in the manner Petitioner proposes. Notably, Patent Owner does not directly contest Petitioner’s stated reasons why a POSITA would be motivated to make the proposed combination, i.e., that the combination would save money and simplify the equipment and process for making and breaking interference fits. See Pet. 19–21; Prelim. Resp. 22–31. Patent Owner instead suggests that Petitioner improperly ignores disadvantages when adding Harless’s groove to Polinski and Piepho, which at best suggests a weighing between the advantages Petitioner contends the addition of Harless’s groove provides and the alleged disadvantages. See Prelim. Resp. 22–31. While Patent Owner’s arguments may ultimately prevail, given the highly factual nature of the competing expert testimony and the weighing necessary to resolve this issue, we view the issues as best resolved after further development during trial and after Petitioner has the opportunity to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence. On this record and at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s arguments and supportive declarant testimony adequately establishes a motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,014,090 - Bote, LLC v. Twitch LLCInstitutedPTAB · Nov 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00889 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–15 on all six grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 10 is unpatentable over Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). As discussed above, we determine the record before us sufficiently shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims (i.e., independent claim 20 on Ground One). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–15), based on Grounds One–Six asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as having “a B.S. or higher degree in Mechanical Engineering (or an equivalent degree/experience) with sufficient experience in design, manufacture, use of inflatable watercraft and/or the materials and components that make up such products.” Pet. 18, see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 72. Petitioner contends that “[d]ue to the modest design and implementation complexities in the field,” POSITA will have “an average-level of problemsolving acumen and would seek solutions to design, material selection, and manufacturing issues for inflatable watercraft problems, but would look to other areas of recreational watercraft, surfboards, boats, other inflatable structures etc. to find similar solutions to similar problems confronted in the field.” Pet. 19–17; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 72.10” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner asserts that it would have been “obvious to add Hoge’s tent covering (fabric floor 28)” to Hoffmann’s inflatable floor 6 and inflatable sides 4, 7 “to protect against punctures in such inflatable chambers.” Pet. 64. And Petitioner provides evidence that “modifying Hoffmann in such a way would be a routine implementation for a POSITA requiring merely adding an additional protective fabric floor (as informed by Hoge), rending predictable results.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 137. Patent Owner has not directed us to any contrary evidence. Thus, based on the evidence and arguments before us, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that it would have been obvious to provide Hoffmann’s inflatable boat with a tent covering extending between its lower chamber (floor 12) and its upper chamber (i.e., tubes 14, 16).” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,479,458 - Cimbria Srl v. 3u Vision SrlInstitutedPTAB · Sep 20, 2024 · PGR2024-00018 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–15 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, and 10 are obvious over ElMasry.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’947 patent is eligible for post-grant review, and has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’947 patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’947 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, or an equivalent field, and at least 2-3 years of academic or industry experience in engineering related to optical sorting systems.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21). Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition and, therefore, at this point, does not contest Petitioner’s definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’947 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms for the purposes of rendering a decision to institute trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). At this stage, we find it unnecessary to resolve whether “electronic control unit” and “processing module” should be construed as mean plus function limitations under § 112(f), because it is possible to address the obviousness grounds presented whether or not these limitations are so construed, and even if the claims were indefinite in the manner Petitioner contends. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 813 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting indefiniteness of a means-plus-function limitation does not always render it impossible to adjudicate a prior-art challenge). We direct the parties to address the construction of these claim terms and Petitioner’s interpretation during trial.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner evidence and citations and, on the current record, we find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that ElMasry teaches all the limitations of claim 1, without need for any modification. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 would have been unpatentable as obvious over ElMasry.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,666,947 - Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. v. Hongjia WangAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00474 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12–15, 18, 19, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhou, Bannister, Gentry, and Durfee; the Board did not reach the additional Welty-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“known that a spiral flute helps to lift swarf away from the cutting surface. Pet. 67 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 201–202). The testimony of Petitioner’s expert states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “the spiral shape of the flute side walls was desirable since it helps to lift chips, or swarf, away from the cutting surface and evacuate it from the hole being cut.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 202. This makes intuitive sense, as a wall perpendicular to the surface would push accumulated chips along, whereas the wedge shape of the spiral will lift them away from the cutting surface. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Zhou’s flute to arrange the cutting edges such that they, as a whole, have a spiral shape in order to achieve these chip-lifting benefits. Thus, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention had a reason to include the known feature of cutting tips that spiraled around the cone portion, in order to achieve the benefit of providing better chip removal.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A [person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)] with respect to the ’583 patent would have been an individual educated in mechanical engineering with a bachelor’s degree and at least one or two years of experience in the development of drill bits, or an associate’s degree and at least five years of experience in the development of drill bits. A POSA would typically work in a team with machinists and would be aware of developments in the field of machine tools, particularly drill bits, for example by attending trade shows, and by reading patents and trade journals.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“formed sequentially and spirally on a cone portion exterior” of the twist drill. The parties agreed to construe the cutting blade groups being “formed spirally” as meaning that the cutting blade groups are slanted with respect to the rotational axis, i.e., are not perpendicular to the rotational axis. The parties have agreed that being “formed spirally” is met by axial relief. Pet. 23; Tr. 77:9–12. We adopted this construction. slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Construction of Remaining Terms We determine that no further terms require construction. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,007,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,007,583 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00291 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1 under § 103 over Whybrew and Strength.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“G. Synopsis Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving that independent claim 1 of the ’535 Patent would have been obvious over Whybrew in view of Strength.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“discretion include “the merits.” Fintiv at 6. Petitioner asserts that “Patent Owner’s failure to even address the merits of the Petitioner establishes that there are compelling merits to the Petition.” Prelim. Reply 4. Patent Owner questions the correctness of this assertion (see Prelim. Sur-Reply 4), and we do not necessarily agree with Petitioner in this regard. In any event, this is not a situation where we need to rely heavily on particularly strong merits to justify institution, as Fintiv Factors 1–5 collectively weigh against discretionary denial. See Fintiv at 14–16. Accordingly, here, when we consider the Fintiv Factors holistically, they cumulatively reveal that efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by institution of the Petition.” slip op. at 27
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“cumulativeness are accurate, Petitioner is still relying upon a different combination of primary and secondary references than that relied upon by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’535 Patent. Patent Owner does not contend that Petitioner’s primary reference (Whybrew) is aligned with the Examiner’s primary reference (Nagata), but rather with the Examiner’s secondary reference (Reis). To wit, during prosecution of the ’535 patent, the Examiner did not evaluate whether it would have been obvious to modify a mesh panel in Reis to include a camouflage pattern and dark color coating. See Ex. 1006, 59-74, 112, 116–129, 112. 23 For example, Whybrew discloses that its mesh fabric window 24 defines an outer surface of the structure (see e.g., Ex. 1002, 5:40–43, Figs. 1–4), while the applicant pointed out during prosecution that Reis does not “disclose panels of mesh material defining an outer surface of the structure” (Ex. 1006, 100). Also, Strength discloses that “there is a need for camouflage material” for “applications such as hunting” (Ex. 1003, 1:24–26) while applicant pointed out during prosecution that “Nagata discusses tents in the context of changing clothes, sunbathing, etc.,” not “hunting” (Ex. 1006, 100). Thus, our review of the record indicates that the Petition does not present the same or substantially same art/arguments previously presented to the Office during prosecution of the ’535 Patent.24” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“real party-in-interest [(RPI)] in their Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Per Patent Owner, this alleged RPI-listing failure impacts discretionary-denial issues. See id. at 15–24. However, as discussed below, our outcome on the discretionary-denial front is the same regardless of FeraDyne’s RPI status. claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020). Thus, this is a situation where an RPI determination is not necessary to resolve the proceeding.3” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,399,535 - National Railroad Passenger Corporation D/B/A Amtrak v. Railware, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01180 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–7, 9–16, or 18–41 would have been obvious over any asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical, or related engineering, and also would have had at least two (2) years of experience in railway operations or railway control systems and would have programming experience,” and that “[a] higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24– 25). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill identified by Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill because, on the current record, it is invention reflected by the ’835 patent and the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“to sufficiently show how the Specification of the ’835 patent shows that the claim terms “removal code,” “secret release code,” and “secret code” encompass a non-public code that is received by any railway personnel that may be used to release a track block without further limitations on the accessibility to the code by, for example, a dispatcher prior to a release of a track block. See also Ex. 1001, 11:40–42 (identifying the need for limitations on the accessibility of the code to give the railway worker “more control over the traffic through the rail block in which the worker is working,” so that “fatal on-track accidents can be reduced”). The ’835 patent makes clear that the code is “only” received by the relevant railway field worker and an internal storage. Id. at 7:20–27, see also id. at 2:53–63 electronic contact address of the railway field worker, and permitting the block to the track sections to be removed only upon entry of the removal code in the centralized railway control system”) (emphases added); 8:40–46 (stating that the railway traffic controller may remove a block “with the input of the release code provided by the designated worker assigned for track work”). Although the ’835 patent describes alternative means for retrieving the code from internal storage when the field worker is unavailable, accessibility to the code is limited and this alternative access is only provided where “no maintenance worker [is] available to transmit the random secret code.” See id. at 10:44–48; see also id. at 6:3–6, 9:54–56, 10:23–30, 10:35–52 (consistently describing the “removal code”/“secret release code”/“secret code” as “secret”). Our analysis in this Decision is limited to determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any Challenged Claim and we need not expressly construe “removal code,” “secret release code,” or “secret code” to make that determination.12 Petitioner’s application of a purported plain and ordinary meaning of “removal code, ” “secret release code,” and “secret code” neglects to address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “removal code,” “secret release code,” and “secret code” in light 12 Further, for purposes of this Decision we need not resolve whether Patent Owner’s proposed express construction of “removal code,” “secret release code,” and “secret code” is the proper meaning of the terms in light of the Specification, which we note does not appear to expressly address how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have distinguished a code that is “readily available” to the dispatcher from a code that was not “readily available.”” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“patent would have been obvious over Oriol and Masquelier. Pet. 18–56; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–268 (Dr. Michalson providing testimony in support of Petitioner’s contentions). Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 25–37. Because we find it determinative, we focus our discussion on whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown for purposes of institution that the code limitations would have been obvious over Oriol and Masquelier. For the reasons that follow, and as further explained above in our discussion of what is not encompassed by the recited “removal code,” “secret release code,” and “secret code” (see supra Section III.C.1), we determine Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. Federal Railroad Administration’s report on “Supporting Railroad Roadway Worker Communications with a Wireless Handheld Computer.” Ex. 1004, i; Ex. 1005, i. Oriol “documents the design and evaluation of a digital communication device intended to improve roadway worker safety and productivity.” Ex. 1004, iii. Masquelier “evaluate[s] the human factor implications of computer and communications technology in railroad operations.” Ex. 1005, iii. Oriol states that “[a]ccording to the Amtrak operating rules (NORAC, 1999), the dispatcher issues Form Ds to restrict or authorize train movements.” Ex. 1004, 8.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
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.