• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

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

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Kohler Co. v. Delta Faucet Co.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00700 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–8 and 10–24 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references failed to establish limitations including the claimed light pipe features.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Petitioner’s witness (Mr. Cook) qualifies as a POSITA under this definition, and, therefore, is qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSITA on technical matters included within the areas of expertise prescribed by the definition. As indicated above, Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA does not require education in the field of optics and professional experience designing or analyzing optical apparatus, unlike Patent Owner’s definition. We are aware, however, that Patent Owner’s witness (Dr. Klopp) has more extensive experience with optical systems and methods than Petitioner’s witness (Mr. Cook). Compare Ex 1003 ¶¶ 8–14, Ex. 2005, 39:21–59:17, with Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 3–20, Ex. 2004, 1–2, Ex. 1015, 10:22–13:25. Although Mr. Cook possesses excellent credentials in the field of mechanical engineering, his experience in the design and analysis of optical systems and methods is sparse and insubstantial compared to that of Dr. Klopp. Id. Due to this difference in experience levels, in instances where the witnesses express differing views on factual issues related to optical systems and methods, we will accord more weight to Dr. Klopp’s testimony than to Mr. Cook’s.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “through the light transmission portion and bottom output face 313 of light conductor 38, which teaches transmitting light in parallel with the longitudinal axis of the housing. Tseng does not disclose or teach that light is emitted through the side surface of annular protrusion 383 in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing. Ex. 1004 ¶ 97. Petitioner’s assertions that this would be the case consist solely of conclusory statements, supported only by citations to Mr. Cook’s declaration. Mr. Cook, however, simply repeats Petitioner’s conclusory statements, without providing sound technical reasoning supported by objective evidence to explain and support his opinions. Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 101– 102, 105, 195–198, 202. We, therefore, accord little weight to Mr. Cook’s opinion on this particular matter because it “merely repeats, verbatim, the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support,” and “does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning [in] support.” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). Furthermore, Mr. Cook’s opinion conflicts with that of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Klopp, who opines that a “POSITA would understand from Tseng’s third embodiment that light from the LED would bypass the annular protrusion 383 of outer cliff 381, while transmitting downwardly toward the output face 313.” Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 174–175, 190–194, with Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 101–102, 105. As discussed above, Mr. Cook is qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSITA on technical matters included within the expertise of a person meeting Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, which do not include optics and optical apparatus. We, therefore, credit Dr. Klopp’s opinion over that of Mr. Cook on this particular factual issue of how it is directly related to optical systems and methods about which Mr. Cook possesses limited relevant experience. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–15 (experience in communication systems and electronics); Ex. 2005, 55:16–58:19 (design experience with electronics that use indicator lights or fiber-optic communications; no professional experience with light pipes, diffusers, or plumbing fixtures). Dr. Klopp possesses substantial research and professional experience with optical methods, fiber optic light pipes, light guides, diffusers, prisms, and analysis of faucets, spray heads, and plumbing fixtures. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 6–10 Supra 8 (discussing weight accorded to conflicting witness testimony); see also Resp. 2–3 (arguing that “Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Cook, is a mechanical engineer with substantial professional experience in electronics for high-voltage power systems and communications, but he has limited experience with the claimed subject matter.”).” slip op. at 34

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

    “would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action [held] under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms generally are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We construe terms in controversy only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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 asserts that the claim terms do not require construction and should be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13. Patent Owner contends that it applies the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms. Resp. 7. Taking into consideration the information presented, we determine that none of the claim terms requires express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute before us.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenMixed

    “perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of Tseng’s housing (internal 33 and external 34 sleeves). “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc (quoting Magnum Oil)).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,393,363 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,393,363
• Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 29–31 are unpatentable; claims 25 and 32–34 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to exclude was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • RemandOther

    “review of claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1, 3. Patent Owner, Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). We initially determined that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and did not institute inter partes review. Paper 17. Petitioner requested Director review of our decision denying institution (Paper 18 (“Request”)). The Director delegated review of the decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”). Paper 19. Patent Owner was granted the option to file a response to Petitioner’s Request (Paper 22 (“Request Resp.”)). The Delegated Review Panel vacated our decision and remanded the case to this panel with a revised claim construction for claim 1. Paper 23 (“DRP Dec.”). On August 30, 2024, we instituted an inter partes review after remand from the Director. Paper 25 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner subsequently filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 31, “Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Reply”), Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 44, “Sur-reply”), and Petitioner filed a Sur-sur-reply (Paper 48, “Sur-sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther

    “I. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1089 and 1090. Paper 50. As we did not rely on either of Exhibits 1089 or 1090 in deciding this matter, Patent Owner’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 96

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

    “For these reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments and cited evidence also” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “function as R2, and the ethyl group may function as R4, which can be a linear alkyl having 1–6 carbon atoms. We note that claim 3 permits R5 and R6 to be absent. For these reasons, the arguments presented in the Petition demonstrate that claim 3 would have been obvious over Singh’s Compound 3 when modified in view of Harris.” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 10,131,682 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,131,682
• Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 17–21 are unpatentable over Ohel; claims 5 and 11–16 were not shown unpatentable over Ohel or Nigawara.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We have considered the parties’ citations to the specification and find examples that support Petitioner’s view that the term “entity” is broad enough to encompass dispatchers and individual users. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:52–4:5, 7:18–20, Fig. 1). However, we find no disclosure that redefines “entity” or excludes dispatchers and individual users from the category of “entity.” Patent Owner’s best examples (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–21, 3:59–62) are no more than non-limiting examples. On the complete record, we conclude that “entity” is broad enough to include dispatchers and individual users.” slip op. at 20

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

    “have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached

    “have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,324,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,324,802
• Chongqing Yanmei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Terves, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2024 · IPR2023-00521 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–61, 63–77, and 79 are unpatentable as anticipated by Doud; claims 78, 80, and 81 are not shown unpatentable. The contingent motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Ph.D. in chemistry, metallurgy, or material science or material engineering” or, in the alternative, “would have a Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degree in one of these disciplines plus experience involving the use and design of dissolvable metal alloys for use in creating tools and other downhole parts for well drilling or completion activities.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contentions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 12 n.4. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan as it is consistent with the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to claim 19, Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “in situ precipitate” and “a plurality of particles of said in situ precipitate having a size of no more than 50 µm.” Pet. 11–12. With respect to claims 76–81, Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “wherein said additive material includes one or more metal materials selected from the group consisting of 0.1–35 wt. % copper, 0.1–24.5 wt. % nickel and 0.1–20 wt. % cobalt.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner contends no claims require construction for purposes of this Decision. PO Resp. 12 n.4, 17–18; Mot. 16–17. Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See 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 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateWritten description adequateMixed

    “Ex. 2027, 20:25–21:5 (emphasis added). The disclosure that the “magnesium composite” of “[t]he present invention” “includes at least 50 wt% magnesium” is unambiguous and constitutes strong evidence that the inventors were not in possession of a magnesium composite with less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or additive concentrations above 50 wt. %. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovasular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that a description of the “present invention” as having a particular structure “is strong evidence that the claims should not be read to encompass the opposite structure”). Consistent with this conclusion, the original claims of the ’295 application all limited the additive material in the composite to 0.05 wt %–45 wt %. Ex. 2027, 26:1– 13, 29:9–15. Likewise, in each example where copper, nickel, or cobalt additives are used in the range recited in the proposed substitute claims, the magnesium composite is “over 50 wt% magnesium,” and any claims that do not require this range of magnesium are limited to an additive range of “about 0.05 wt%–45 wt% of said mixture.”8 Ex. 2027, 6:13–7:4, 7:16–19, 8 Written description support is considered from the view point of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Patent Owner, bearing the burden to show written description support in any priority application for which it seeks the benefit of its filing date, provides no testimony from an ordinarily skilled artisan regarding written description support in the ’295 application, or any evidence to show what such an artisan would conclude from the express disclosures of the ’295 application. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7; In re NTP, 654 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that “a patent’s claims are not entitled to an earlier priority date merely because the patentee claims priority . . . Rather, for a patent’s claims to be entitled to an earlier priority date, the patentee must demonstrate that the claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120”). Where there is any ambiguity in the disclosures of the ’295 application, the absence of supporting testimony tends to cut against 26:2–31:2; see Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 12, 13, 18, 19, 16–21, 26, 28, claims 16–21, 26– 28. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated that the inventors of the priority applications were in possession of a magnesium cast composite that included less than 50 wt. % magnesium, or greater than 50 wt. % additives. As proposed substitute claim 104 encompasses a magnesium cast composite with up to 90 wt. % additives, and therefore as little as 10 wt. % magnesium, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the full scope of this claim finds written description support in any application prior to the ’915 application, filed on October 12, 2018.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed

    “The definiteness requirement of § 112(a) is satisfied when “a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable clarity.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (changing the claim construction standard used to review a claim proposed in a motion to amend from the broadest reasonable construction to the “same construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b)”). Proposed substitute claim 104 generically requires “in situ precipitate” and also a specific type of in situ precipitate: “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate.” Mot. Appendix A. Although this claim would have best been clarified by Patent Owner after seeking preliminary guidance on its Motion to Amend, upon review of the written description, claims, and figures of the ’740 patent, as well as Patent Owner’s clarification in its Reply to the Opposition, we agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “in situ galvanically-active intermetallic precipitate” is merely a more complete description of the “in situ precipitate” mentioned earlier in the sentence. Mot. Reply 4. As such, we do not find that this part of proposed substitute claim renders claim 104 indefinite.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,740 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,740
• Gce Gas Control Equipment Inc. v. Vbox, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00326 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–14 and 16 are unpatentable under § 103 over Deane alone and Deane, Dubois, and Berntson; claims 1–11 and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is a factual determination that provides a 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 v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Based on Petitioner’s contention, which Patent Owner does not dispute, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or a related field, and two years of experience in the research, design, or development of POCs and related hardware, software, and firmware. Compare Pet. 21, with Resp. 11. Our finding is supported by Dr. Knaebel’s testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 226–228. The level of ordinary skill in the art, as defined above, appears consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art and the written description of the invention provided in the ’614 patent.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Deane thus teaches that adsorbent housing 602 and adsorbent bed columns 508a, 508b—the asserted separation cartridge—are part of an apparatus that rests on a support surface such as a table or floor. Based on Deane’s disclosure, we find persuasive Patent Owner’s contention, and Patent Owner’s witness’s opinion, that Deane’s housing 602/adsorbent bed columns 508a, 508b (separation cartridge) cannot be removed from the receptacle by movement of the separation cartridge vertically downward. Resp. 37–38; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 118–131. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Knaebel, points to any evidence of record showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Deane’s housing 602/adsorbent bed columns 508a, 508b (separation cartridge) could be removed from manifold 512 (receptacle) by moving housing 602/adsorbent bed columns 508a, 508b (separation cartridge) downward when the apparatus is resting on a table or floor, as taught by Deane. Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1078 ¶¶ 121–161. Petitioner fails to show that Deane’s housing 602/adsorbent bed columns 508a, 508b (separation cartridge) could be removed from the receptacle by movement of the separation cartridge in the downward (second) direction, as required by the removal direction limitation of claim 1. Petitioner, therefore, does not establish unpatentability under its axial movement theory.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Giving effect to “by movement relative to the receptacle,” when interpreting this phrase in combination with “a separation cartridge selectively removable from a receptacle,” requires that the separation cartridge is removable from the receptacle by movement of the separation cartridge itself. Interpreting the removal direction limitation to encompass a stationary separation cartridge, as Petitioner proposes, would render “by movement relative to the receptacle” superfluous. Specifically, Petitioner’s interpretation of “relative movement” does not accord weight to the recitation “movement relative to the receptacle,” which requires something other than the receptacle—the separation cartridge—to move in order for movement to occur with reference to or in comparison with the receptacle. Petitioner’s interpretation of “relative movement” as permitting removal of the separation cartridge from the receptacle when the separation cartridge remains stationary, is inconsistent with the plain language of removal direction limitation as a whole. The plain language of the removal direction limitation indicates that the separation cartridge must be removable from the receptacle by movement of the separation cartridge in a specified (first) direction. Claim 1 defines the first direction as a direction opposite the (second) direction in which the inlet and outlet are oriented. The plain language of the removal direction limitation, therefore, requires that the separation cartridge is removable from a receptacle by movement of the separation cartridge in comparison to the receptacle in a direction opposite the direction in which the separation cartridge’s inlet and outlet are oriented.” slip op. at 15

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “(a) Untimely new theory of unpatentability We agree with Patent Owner (Sur-Reply 4) that Petitioner’s relative movement theory is an impermissible new theory of unpatentability improperly presented for the first time in the Reply. Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008–09 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (A petitioner may not raise in a reply “‘an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the petition,’ even if the new theory is responsive to the patent owner’s response or the Board’s institution decision.”) (quoting Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F. 3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in . . . disregarding its [petitioner’s] new theory first raised in reply.”). Petitioner does not present the relative movement theory in the Petition, and instead presents it for the first time in the Reply. Pet. 42–43. Far from fairly meeting any argument introduced by Patent Owner in the Response, this new theory unfairly changes the thrust of the challenge.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,389,614 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,389,614
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106

  Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,731
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Digital Stream IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01749 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6–13, 20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2 and 3 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not establish portability or handheld use.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Petitioner bears the burden of correctly identifying the real parties-in-interest, “[w]e generally accept the petitioner’s identification of real parties-in-interest at the time of filing the petition.” See Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp., Case IPR2014-01254, at 6 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015) (Paper 35) (citing Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,695 (Aug. 14, 2012)). Here, Petitioner identifies in its Petition the real party-in-interest: “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Unified Patents Inc. (‘Unified’ or ‘Petitioner’) certifies that Unified is the real party-in-interest.” Pet. 1. Such identification gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that Petitioner has complied with its obligation to identify all real parties-in-interest. See Zerto at 6–7. Patent Owner recognizes that “it [is] incumbent on the patent owner to come forward with some rebuttal evidence.” PO Resp. 52. In response to Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest, Patent Owner contends that “this is not an instance where a petitioner’s certification in a petition can be taken at face value” because “evidence proffered by [Petitioner] in support of its position was withdrawn deliberately.” Id. at 53. We do not, however, require evidence beyond a petitioner’s identification of real parties-in-interest in the absence of rebuttal evidence that such identification is erroneous or incomplete. Petitioner’s withdrawal of Exhibit 1012 from the record does not constitute such rebuttal evidence. In view of the foregoing, we find that the circumstances here do not raise sufficient doubt about whether Petitioner has satisfied its obligation to name all real parties-in-interest. Therefore, we determine that the Petition should not be dismissed on this basis.” slip op. at 7

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

    “by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer,” however, and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the specification. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Petitioner proposes an express construction for the claim term “transceiver.” Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not propose an express construction for any claim term. See generally PO Resp. In light of the parties’ arguments, we determine that no term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Rovira teaches each of the recited claim limitations, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In that regard, Petitioner directs us to Rovira’s teaching that “it is highly desirable to communicate program content information” because “having such information as music title, composer, artist and record label is vital” to music lovers. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:30–32, 2:5–10); see also Ex. 1003, 1:32–35 (“Frustration of customers, and possible loss of revenue due to subscription cancellation can occur if a subscriber has no method of knowing the title, composer or artist of the particular selection of music.”). Petitioner argues it, thus, would have been obvious to modify Schotz’s system to incorporate a signal that includes both audio data and program data, as taught by Rovira. Pet. 17; see also, e.g., id. at 21 (“[O]ne would have been motivated to (1) modify Schotz’s transmitter 4 to transmit the digital audio signal of Rovira . . . and (2) modify Schotz’s receiver 6 to receive this digital audio signal.”); id. at 23 (“[T]his modification would result in Schotz’s user interface switch 18 selecting the digital audio data . . . within the digital audio signal [of Rovira].”); id. at 25 (“It would have been obvious to utilize the tuner 110 of Rovira in Schotz for [tuning] to frequencies that Schotz is receiving based on its use of Rovira’s digital audio signal. . . . Schotz is essentially doing this already, i.e., tuning to a frequency associated with audio data.”); id. at 27 (“[I]t would have been obvious to modify Schotz to utilize Rovira’s disclosed demodulator 125 to extract the selected digital audio data and the audio program information from the carrier wave, as taught by Rovira.”); id. at 28–29 (“It would have been obvious to modify Schotz to include the digital to analog converter 160 disclosed in Rovira. . . . The receiver 6 of Schotz would necessarily need a digital to analog converter when using the digital signals disclosed in Rovira so that the user can hear the selected music.”). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reasoning, including specifically the quoted material in the preceding string citation to the Petition, for modifying Schotz’s system to include Rovira’s signal as well as various components for processing such a signal. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. We note that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and, in modifying Schotz’s system to include Rovira’s signal, would have made any necessary additional modifications such that Schotz’s system could process appropriately Rovira’s signal. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,913 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,913
• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2015 · IPR2014-01351 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 60, 61, 70–74, and 77 are unpatentable as obvious over Blank, Kakinami, and Schofield; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Nranian testifies that the proposed modification would require substantial reconstruction or a redesign of Blank or a change in the principle of operation. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 106–110. Dr. Nranian does not elaborate on this opinion or explain what redesigns and reconstructions would be required. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Kazerooni that designing a housing to hold components therein is a basic engineering concept within the level of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of, and as evidenced by, the disclosures of Blank and Schofield. Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 21–23. Blank discloses that circuit board 150 may be configured for a supplemental vision system. Ex. 1005, 7:51–59. TRW proposes to use this principle of operation and include Kakinami’s camera with Blank’s module 26. Pet. Reply 15–17. As discussed above, Blank and Schofield disclose reconfiguration and redesign of accessory housings, both internally and externally, to accommodate a variety of different accessories. Ex. 1005, 3:8–11, 7:6–10; Ex. 1006, 9:24– 36. Kakinami also discloses mounting of video camera 20, which includes lens 14, video device 15, and signal processing unit 16. Ex. 1010, 2:15–26, Fig. 2a. Physical incorporation is not required to demonstrate obviousness. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1573.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “sophistication of the technology, all as addressed herein, it is submitted that the person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’590 Patent at the time of the invention would have had at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or mechanical engineering with course work or research in automobile accessory systems with at least two years of work making automobile accessory systems. Ex. 1012 ¶ 30. This discussion appears in Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration in a section entitled “LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL.” Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 29–30. This definition of a skilled artisan in paragraph 30 immediately precedes Dr. Kazerooni’s discussion of the “STATE OF THE ART IN THE RELEVANT TIMEFRAME.” See id. ¶¶ 31–48. This definition of a skilled artisan in paragraph 30 of Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration matches TRW’s definition of a skilled artisan in the Petition and is cited as the basis of TRW’s definition of a skilled artisan. See Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 29–30); Ex. 1012 ¶ 30. Another definition of a skilled artisan appears in Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration in a section entitled “SUMMARY OF OPINIONS.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 10. It is unclear what use, if any, is made of this definition. Accordingly, we understand TRW and Dr. Kazerooni to assert the same definition of a skilled artisan, which definition appears at page 17 of the Petition and paragraph 30 of Dr. Kazerooni’s Declaration. Dr. Kazerooni identifies November 4, 1999 as the priority date of the ’590 patent invention. Ex. 1012 ¶ 26. Magna does not dispute this date. PO Resp. 57. Dr. Kazerooni testifies to the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. Id. ¶ 30. Dr. Kazerooni provides a detailed discussion of the state of the art at the time of the invention by discussing the disclosures of Blank, Kakinami, Schofield, Carter, Anderson, and Klappenbach. Id. ¶¶ 31– 48. These references were filed and issued before November 4, 1999. TRW” slip op. at 32

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

    “We interpret “bus communication” as “information transferred over a set of signal lines between devices connected to the signal lines.” We are not persuaded that a bus must include an interface. The IEEE Standard 969 Interface Devices (Ex. 1004) defines a bus in that context. The’590 patent discloses a CAN bus without disclosing an interface. Ex. 1002, 4:15–17. An ordinary meaning of “bus” includes “[a] set of signal lines to which a number of devices are connected and over which information is transferred between them.” See ANSI/IEEE Standard 1196-1987 IEEE Standard for a Simple 32-Bit Backplane Bus: NuBus (Ex. 3001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We construe “cluster of individual sensors” as “a group of individual sensors or components of individual sensors positioned close together.” Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 11–12. This interpretation is consistent with an ordinary meaning of “cluster” which includes “a group of things or people that are close together” (Pet. 6) and the claims, which recite “a cluster of individual sensors resides on or near said in-cabin surface of said windshield.” This interpretation is consistent with the ’590 patent specification, which discloses that housing 10 is divided by wall 16 into adjacent first and second compartments 18, 20. Ex. 1002, 3:29–31, Fig. 2. One embodiment contains rain sensor 26 in first compartment 18 and printed circuit board 30 bearing a compass sensor 30 in second compartment 20. Id. at 5:62–6:12, 7:52–55, Figs. 2, 8. The ’590 patent specification discloses that the housing may accommodate a plurality of electrical accessories. Id. at 6:42–44. The ’590 patent further discloses that component 30 “can be any of a number of sensors or circuits which can be made small enough to fit in the compartment 20.” Id. at 7:64–67 (emphasis added). Preferably, component 30 is provided as a unitary module received in compartment 20. Id. at 7:67– 8:1. An ordinary meaning of “any” is one or more. Thus, the ’590 patent specification discloses that component 30 may include more than one sensor.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,513,590 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,513,590
• C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2015 · IPR2014-00727 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 are unpatentable as obvious over Betts; claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 were not shown unpatentable over Betts and the Orange Book.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “The term “enclosure unit” encompasses lavatories, aircraft closets, and aircraft galleys. Given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to further construe this term. 2. “lavatory stall unit” Whereas independent claim 1 recites “enclosure unit,” independent claim 9 recites “lavatory stall unit.” Patent Owner proposes the latter be construed as “a single room, enclosed on all sides, having a toilet and washbasin and large enough to fit a person inside.” PO Resp. 12. For reasons similar to those with respect to “enclosure unit,” we reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “lavatory stall unit.” Further, given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to provide an express construction for this term. More specifically, Petitioner does not rely on any particular prior art lavatory. Indeed, Petitioner does not rely on either of the asserted references to teach a “lavatory stall unit,” instead relying on the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “These proposed constructions would render the claim language “in a vertical plane” meaningless because tilting a seatback between an upright position and another position would have no effect on the shape of the aft surface of the seatback. Therefore, we do not adopt them. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (proposed construction that rendered a portion of the claim language meaningless held improper). Rather, we construe “in a vertical plane” according to its ordinary and customary meaning and consistent with the specification, which contrasts a forward wall in a vertical plane (see Fig. 1—the prior art) against a recessed forward wall (see Fig. 2—an embodiment of the claimed invention). In sum, the full limitation at issue encompasses an aft portion (in the case of claim 1) and an aft portion with an exterior aft surface (in the case of claims 9, 21, and 31) that has a flat shape but which is not within a vertical plane. This is within the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification, which discloses a substantially conforming recessed forward wall positioned behind the seat (see Ex. 1001, Fig. 2), as opposed to a wall that is flat in a vertical plane (see id. at Fig. 1). 4. “forward wall portion is shaped to substantially conform to the shape of the” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “As discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of the ’838 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Betts. But, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Betts and the Orange Book, as Petitioner has not established that the evidence relied upon within the Orange Book is a printed publication.” slip op. at 3

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

    “motivated to efficiently use space on an aircraft, as evidenced by Betts, “to provide more room for passengers.” Id. ¶ 65 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:6–7). Mr. Anderson further testifies that Betts teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art a recessed forward wall configuration that uses space more efficiently than a flat configuration, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the recessed configuration to other aircraft enclosures, including lavatories. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been discouraged from attempting to tailor Betts’ divided space design to any lavatory stall unit (or any other enclosure unit) because Betts required separate enclosures divided both functionally and spatially.” PO Resp. 29. But, Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability is not premised on whether it would have been practical or possible to convert Bett’s “divided space” (i.e., its overhead coat compartment and floor luggage space) into a lavatory. Rather, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Bett’s recessed forward wall design to other aircraft enclosures, including a lavatory. Pet. 19 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the McDonnell Douglas patent [i.e., Betts] are equally applicable to the forward walls of other enclosure units, such as lavatories or galleys.”) (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65–68); cf. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the 15 features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,590,838 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,590,838

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.