• 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
• 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
• Microchip Technology Inc. v. HD Silicon Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01042 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 13–27, and 29–32 are unpatentable as anticipated by Haswell or obvious over Haswell and Itou; claims 12 and 28 were not shown unpatentable over Haswell and Lempel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelDecided for petitioner

    “III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the “type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’619 patent would have had the following education and experience: at least (1) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related degree, and at least 3-5 years of experience in computer architecture and cache memory design; or (2) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related degree, and at least 5-6 years of experience in computer architecture and cache memory design. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 27). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. See generally PO Resp. Based on the final record before us, including the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which is also supported by Dr. Sechen’s testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 28.” slip op. at 8

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

    “A. “instruction cache” Each of claims 1, 21, and 29, specifically require a method or system for instruction error correction that uses “an instruction cache.” In its Petition, Petitioner does not specifically advocate for an interpretation of “instruction cache.” In our Institution Decision, we noted the importance of the meaning of the term because “Patent Owner challenges two of the prior art references (Haswell and Itou) as not disclosing an instruction cache, as claimed, arguing instead that each reference uses a main storage memory or similar.” Dec. on Inst. 21–22. In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily found that the instruction cache is a memory for the storage of instructions that are accessed and executed by the processor. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 1:62– 64, code (57)). We also noted that lack of argument and evidence at that phase of the proceeding. Id. The parties responded by including additional argument, testimony, and evidence in the final record, which we now consider. Patent Owner argues that an “instruction cache” is distinct from main memory. PO Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner first relies on the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Sechen (Exhibit 2005), Petitioner’s expert. Id. Dr. Sechen testified during questioning that the main memory is not an instruction cache in that “it wouldn’t satisfy the normal definition of an instruction cache, which has certain features.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2005, 61:20– 62:7, 98:3–101:10). Patent Owner further argues that Dr. Sechen “also explained that the retrieval of data from an instruction cache is faster than from main memory due in part to its proximity to the processor.” Id. at 32 (quoting Ex. 2005, 166:8–18). Patent Owner further relies on the description of an “instruction cache” found in the Specification of the ’619 patent, that “[t]he instruction cache 103 is a memory for the storage of instructions 109 that are accessed and executed by the processor 106.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:62–64). Patent Owner also relies on the testimony of its own expert, Dr. Przybylski, who testifies that “the retrieval of data from a cache is faster (and thus takes fewer instruction cycles) than retrieval from main memory,” and “[b]ecause an instruction cache only holds a subset of the contents of main memory at any given time, a cache requires tags, a tag storage, and hit/miss logic in order to autonomously determine whether the fetch of an instruction can be satisfied from the cache.” Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 65, 66; Ex. 1001, 3:19–21.” slip op. at 9

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

    “B. “means for detecting an error” Independent claim 29 recites “means for detecting an error in each of the instructions concurrently with the fetching of a respective one of the instructions.” Ex. 1001, 12:51–53. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that “[t]his element is interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 because it claims ‘means for’ and then recites the function of ‘detecting an error in each of the instructions concurrently with the fetching of a respective one of the instructions.’” Pet. 38. Petitioner identifies the corresponding structure as the error correction circuitry 129. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:53–55 (“error detection of the same instruction 109 is performed by the error correction circuitry 129 (FIG. 1)”). Patent Owner does not challenge this interpretation. We find Petitioner’s showing persuasive as to the interpretation of the “means for detecting an error” limitation. C. “means for generating a corrected instruction” Claim 30 recites “means for generating a corrected instruction if the error is detected in the instruction, the corrected instruction being a corrected version of the instruction.” Ex. 1001, 12:55–56. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that this element “is interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 because it claims ‘means for’ and then recites the function of “generating a corrected instruction if the error is detected in the instruction, the corrected instruction being a corrected version of the instruction.” Pet. 40–41. Petitioner identifies the corresponding structure as the error correction logic 143 or circuit 129. Pet. 41. Petitioner relies on the ’619 patent’s disclosure of “when an error is detected ‘in either the instruction 109 or the error correction code 113, then the error correction logic 143 proceeds to generate a corrected version of the instruction 109 and its associated error correction code 113.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:7–11; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). Additionally, Petitioner notes that “the ’619 patent discloses that the error correction circuitry 129 (e.g., collectively) generates a corrected version of the instruction 109 and its corresponding error correction code 113. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:1– 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134) (footnote omitted). Thus, according to Petitioner, “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] POSITA would understand that either the error correction logic 1292 or the error correction logic 143, which belongs to the error correction logic 129, generates the corrected instruction.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). Patent Owner does not challenge this interpretation. We find Petitioner’s showing persuasive as to the interpretation of the” slip op. at 20

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

    “transfer of instructions from memory to a computer processor.” Id. at 1:7–11; see id. at 2:13–15 (“a method and system for detecting error during transfer of data signals from a data memory that permits correction of the error”). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Haswell discloses “error correction” as required by the preamble of claim 1.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,302,619 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,302,619
• Glux Visual Effects Tech (Shenzhen) Co. / Leyard Optoelectronic Co. et al. v. Ultravision Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2021 · IPR2020-01052 · APJ Denise M Pothier · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10–13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Kalua in view of ordinary skill; claims 4–6, 14–16, and 21–26 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts: A person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., a skilled artisan, or “POSITA”) at the time of the ‘791 patent’s alleged invention would have: (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or physics, or undergraduate training in an equivalent field, and (ii) at least two years of experience in the design and/or implementation of LED panels . . . Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–44). Patent Owner does not set forth an ordinary artisan’s skill level. See generally Resp. Mr. Credelle, Patent Owner’s expert, states that he do[es] not disagree with Mr. Flasck’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which he lists as (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or physics, or undergraduate training in an equivalent field, and (ii) at least two years of experience in the design and/or implementation of LED panels. Ex. 2002 ¶ 33. Mr. Credelle further states, similar to Petitioner, “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Id. In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingOther

    “modification kit for converting an existing signage mounting structure to an electronic sign.” Ex. 1001, 87:11–12, 88:1–2, 88:51–52. Petitioner asserts the “preamble is limiting” because the phrase provides antecedent basis for (1) “the existing signage mounting structure” recited in the body of claims 1, 4, and 21 or (2) “the existing signage structure” recited in body of claim 12. Pet. 19. Petitioner further asserts that the preamble breathes, life, and meaning into claims 1, 12, and 21, namely the retrofitting of an existing nonelectric sign into a digital sign. Id. at 19–20 (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Ex. 1001, 1:38–41, 1:45–46, 1:52–54, 18:48–52, 23:1–6, 24:1–11, Fig. 3). For these reasons, Petitioner asserts the preamble “should be construed to require ‘a self-contained retrofit kit for on-site use to convert an existing static non-electronic sign into an electronic sign.’” Id. at 19; see id. at 21.” slip op. at 13

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

    “and further limit either claims 1 or 12. Ex. 1001, 87:63–67, 88:17–18, 88:46–50. We have reviewed the record. Based on the evidence and argument presented, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Kalua in view of Ordinary Skill teach and suggest each limitation in claims 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20, and has articulated sufficient reasoning, with rational underpinning, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Kalua with Ordinary Skill in the manner Petitioner proposes. Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2, 7, 13, 42, 54; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 241–244). Patent Owner does not separately challenge Petitioner’s ground for claims 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20. See generally Resp. Accordingly, having considered each of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner provides by a preponderance of the evidence and articulates sufficient reasoning to support its challenge of claims 10, 11, 13, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Kalua in view of the knowledge and level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Watchfire. (c) Conclusion – Claims 1, 10–13, 19, and 20 Having considered each of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kalua in view of the knowledge and level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Watchfire teach or suggest claims 1, 10–13, 19, and 20.” slip op. at 84

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

    “suggest claims 4, 5, 10, and 11. Pet. 41–43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–153; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 55–56, 75, 78, code (57), Figs. 1A, 1C, 1E (annotated)). Claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 ultimately depend from claim 1 (Ex. 1001, 87:31–37, 87:63– 67) and, therefore, include element [1e] as discussed above. Also, the discussion of claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 in the Petition do not further address the “plurality of power routing systems” limitation (i.e., element [1e]). See Pet. 41–43. Accordingly, Petitioner’s analyses of these claims suffers from the same problems we discussed above when addressing claim 1.” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 9,047,791 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,047,791
• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00440 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 10–16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 5 and 8 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious over Sackier and Kirsch.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “3. Dr. Nicosia’s Declaration in support of its Opposition to Patent” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the” slip op. at 16

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

    “B. “clip” The Parties now agree that “clip,” as the term is generally understood,” slip op. at 14

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

    “as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing this element to be present in Sackier because Petitioner combines features from distinct embodiments in Sackier without establishing persuasively that those embodiments are so directly related to each other such that one of ordinary skill in the art, looking at the reference as a whole, would recognize a disclosure of the invention as claimed. Accordingly, although a very close call, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate anticipation of claims 1, 12, and 20 by Sackier for this reason.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,271,731
• Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd. v. Pkoh Nyc, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2018 · IPR2017-01327 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10–13, 20–22, 24, 26, 28–32, and 35–38 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable over Cho.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Goldman, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the bottle/container field as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’036 patent “would have a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering and at least one or two years’ experience developing container technology.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 4. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and based on the final record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “The Specification of the ’036 patent describes “[t]he elastomeric material is . . . of an appropriate durometer, such as 40 Shore A, to make the squeeze bulb 200 substantially deformable yet resilient,” and the elastomeric material is preferably silicone. Ex. 1001, 2:54–63. Only the claimed wall portion of the receptacle is claimed to be “resiliently deformable.” Id. at 5:9–10. Nothing in the claim, however, precludes or requires any other portion of the receptacle (comprised of elastomeric material) from also being resiliently deformable. Id. at 4:47–48. Notably, the receptacle is claimed to be “flexible and resilient.” Id. Although the “flexible and resilient” receptacle and its wall being “resiliently deformable” are not necessarily identical, this distinction appears to be minor considering the written description of the ’036 patent. Based on the foregoing, we give each of these claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person or ordinary skill in the art. The surrounding claim language for each claim limitation focuses the scope of these terms such that any interpretation we could provide would not be as helpful in understanding the terms as the surrounding claim language. We determine that no terms require express construction for the purposes of this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “6 In our decision, we give little weight to Petitioner’s evidence of “scores of popular baby bottles currently on the market,” because the design of these new bottles does not indicate the state of the art at the time the ’036 patent was filed. Further, Petitioner has failed to provide any corroborating testimony related to these new bottles—recent advertisements do not convince us of what a person of skill in the art would have considered at the time of filing. See Pet. Reply 11 (emphasis added) (citing Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024). We likewise give little weight to Petitioner’s uncorroborated article (Ex. 1026) from Wikipedia concerning “Baby bottle.” The record before us does not establish the origin and scientific basis for this evidence, and thus, we weigh Mr. Goldman’s testimony (Ex. 1021 ¶ 13) based on this evidence in a similar manner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,763 (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data.”). This sentence, standing alone, supports Mr. Fletcher’s conclusion that “an elastomeric, flexible silicone” could be used in the body of Cho’s bottle. See Ex. 1014 ¶ 30. Further, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments, supported by the testimony of Mr. Fletcher, that “silicone is primarily known for its elastic properties, and has been widely used in medical applications, including implants and storage containers, due to its chemical inertness, high heat resistance, flexibility and resistance for at least 60 years.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 34). Petitioner also supports its argument as to the suitability of silicone in consumer products, including in baby bottles, with a 1991 New York Times article that explains the elastomeric properties of silicone. Pet. 12; Ex. 1018, 2 (describing “rubbery silicone”), id. at 3 (“When baby gets a bottle these days, the nipple is a rubbery version of silicone.”). The fact that silicone could also possess other properties, or hardness, does not dissuade us from the determination that Cho, as a whole, teaches using a soft, resilient silicone in the body of the bottle.” slip op. at 20

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

    “At the outset, Mueller is analogous art and Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary flip the analysis from focusing on the problem faced by the inventor of the ’036 patent to the “specific problem(s) found in Cho’s baby bottle.” First, Cho and Mueller are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention—dispensing containers—as admitted by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 36. We need not address the second portion of the analogous art test, which focuses on whether the prior art “is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986–87 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We do note, however, that the parties have both misapplied this second portion of the analysis. This analysis is focused on the problem faced by the inventor of the ’036 patent, not necessarily the problems addressed in the prior art references. Because neither party sufficiently addresses the problems faced by the inventor of the ’036 patent, and because Mueller and Cho are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, we need not address the second portion of the analogous art test.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 7,959,036 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,959,036

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.