• Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2018 · IPR2017-02202 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Richardson and Demeyer did not teach determining the claimed account information or software features through physical device recognition.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “ANALYSIS “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

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

    “machine parameters include . . . information relating to the device’s software configuration” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “data relating to the client device’s software configuration can contain information regarding features of software that the user of the client device is entitled to use” (Pet. 19 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 52; Ex. 1104 ¶ 22)), we find no support in the cited evidence that Richardson teaches or suggests that any “information regarding features of software that the user of the client device is entitled to use” could be determined by performing physical device recognition. Indeed, as we explained in our earlier Decision, we discern no information regarding “features of software that [a] user is entitled to use” in any of Richardson’s machine parameters cited by Petitioner as examples of “information relating to the device’s software configuration,” namely, “the platform on which a web browser or another application runs,” “unique parameters associated with the firmware in use,” and “software or operating system serial number.” Dec. 17; cf. Pet. 19. Despite Petitioner’s citation to the testimony of its declarant, Mr. James Geier, in support of its argument, the cited testimony in disclosures corresponding to the challenged claim language. Although we agree with Petitioner that “a reference need not use the same terminology to disclose an element” (Req. Reh’g 6 n.1 (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), we will not employ the benefit of hindsight from the ’852 patent’s disclosure to find a teaching or suggestion in Richardson. relevant part merely repeats verbatim Petitioner’s argument (compare Ex. 1103 ¶ 52, with Pet. 19) and likewise fails to explain how the cited examples from Richardson would have taught or suggested the claim limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “disclosures corresponding to the challenged claim language. Although we agree with Petitioner that “a reference need not use the same terminology to disclose an element” (Req. Reh’g 6 n.1 (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), we will not employ the benefit of hindsight from the ’852 patent’s disclosure to find a teaching or suggestion in Richardson. relevant part merely repeats verbatim Petitioner’s argument (compare Ex. 1103 ¶ 52, with Pet. 19) and likewise fails to explain how the cited examples from Richardson would have taught or suggested the claim limitation. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 9

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,239,852
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01358 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because Shadle did not establish the claimed molarity and conductivity limitations, and the obviousness showing was insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “and several years of postgraduate training or practical experience in a relevant discipline such as biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering and/or biochemical engineering, among others.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch a person would also understand that protein purification is a multidisciplinary field, and could take advantage of the specialized skills of others using a collaborative approach.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s position on this matter and does not propose its own description for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We agree with Petitioner, and adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’815 patent. We also note that the applied prior art reflects a level of skill at the time of the claimed invention consistent with our determination. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that “the plain language of the claims, as well as the specification of the ’815 patent, indicates that the term ‘molarity’ refers to the total concentration of solute present in the solution, rather than the concentration of one particular solute.” Id. at 10–11. The claims of the ’815 patent refer consistently to the overall molarity of solutions, and not of any particular solute in a given solution. For example, claim 1 requires “an acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity . . . having a molarity of 100 mM or less” (Ex. 1001, 12:42–44 (emphasis added)), and further recites that the molarity of the “adjusted sample is 100 mM or less” (id. at 12:45–47 (emphasis added)). Claim 2 9 similarly limits the molarity of the “acidic aqueous solution.” Id. at 12:50– 52. Notably, these claims do not identify any particular solute to which the term molarity refers; rather, the claims of the ’815 patent describe solutions having certain characteristics, of which solution molarity is one. As we stated in our Institution Decision: Similarly, the specification of the ’815 patent refers to the molarity of the complete solution, rather than one solute in that solution. See, e.g., id. at 4:61–64 (“As used herein, a ‘neutral aqueous solution . . .’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . which has a molarity of 0 to 100mM”), 5:28–31 (“an ‘acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . , which has a molarity of 0 to 100 mM”). The file history of the ’815 patent likewise references the molarity of the solution, rather than of a given solute in the solution. See e.g., Ex.1005, 82 (“an important feature of the present invention is to adjust pH value of the solution, the eluate, to from 4 to 8 while maintaining the molarity of the solution at 100mM or less.”), 107 (“0.1 M buffer was used as an eluent, and 1 M Tris-HCl was used to adjust the pH of the eluted fraction, that is, the fact that 0.1 M and 1 M solutions were used means that the molarity of the eluted fration [sic] must be over 0.1 M (100 mM)”). Inst. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we concluded that the claim terms “conductivity” and “ionic strength,” for which Petitioner proffered constructions in its Petition (Pet. 30, 35–36), did not require express construction for purposes of this proceeding. Dec. 8. Neither Petitioner nor Patent challenges that determination. See PO Resp. 11–22; Reply, passim. In its Response, Patent Owner proposes constructions for several additional 11 terms. Namely, Patent Owner contends that the preambles of claims 1 and 13 should be construed as limiting (PO Resp. 12), “to form particles” should be construed to require that the solution becomes clouded (id. at 16), and “the treated sample containing a physiologically active protein,” as recited in claim 5, should be interpreted to mean “the sample resulting from performing the method of claim 1, which concludes with removing particles in step 3” (id. at 17). Because interpretation of these claim terms is not necessary to our anticipation or obviousness analyses, we need not construe them. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11

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

    “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “To establish that a prior art reference inherently—rather than expressly— discloses a claim limitation, ‘the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or [is] the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.’” Endo Pharm. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,927,815 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,927,815
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01357 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 13 were not held unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove anticipation by Shadle or obviousness over Shadle.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a graduate degree, such as a Ph.D., 6 and several years of postgraduate training or practical experience in a relevant discipline such as biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering and/or biochemical engineering, among others.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–29). Petitioner further contends that “[s]uch a person would also understand that protein purification is a multidisciplinary field, and could take advantage of the specialized skills of others using a collaborative approach.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–29). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s position on this matter and does not propose its own description for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We agree with Petitioner, and adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of the ’289 patent. We also note that the applied prior art reflects a level of skill at the time of the claimed invention consistent with our determination. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that “the plain language of the claims, as well as the specification of the ’289 patent, indicates that the term ‘molarity’ refers to the total concentration of solute present in the solution, rather than the concentration of one particular solute.” Id. at 10. The claims of the ’289 patent refer consistently to the overall molarity of solutions, and not of any particular solute in a given solution. For example, claim 1 requires “an acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity having a molarity of 100 mM or less” (Ex. 1001, 12:50–51 (emphasis added)), and further recites that the “molarity of the neutralized 9 eluate is 100 mM or less” (id. at 12:54 (emphasis added)). Claim 2 similarly limits the molarity of the “acidic aqueous solution.” Id. at 12:59–61. Notably, these claims do not identify any particular solute to which the term molarity refers; rather, the claims of the ’289 patent describe solutions having certain characteristics, of which solution molarity is one. As we stated in our Institution Decision: Similarly, the specification of the ’289 patent refers to the molarity of the complete solution, rather than one solute in that solution. See, e.g., id. at 4:61–66 (“As used herein, a ‘neutral aqueous solution . . .’ generally refers to an-aqueous [sic] solution . . . which has a molarity of 0 to 100mM”), 5:28–31 (“an ‘acidic aqueous solution of low conductivity’ generally refers to an aqueous solution . . . , which has a molarity of 0 to 100 mM”). The prosecution history of the ’289 patent likewise references the molarity of the solution, rather than of a given solute in the solution. See e.g., Ex.1005, 12 (“an important feature of the present invention is to adjust pH value of the solution, the eluate, to from 4 to 8 while maintaining the molarity of the solution at 100mM or less.”), 37 (“0.1 M buffer was used as an eluent, and 1 M Tris-HCl was used to adjust the pH of the eluted fraction, that is, the fact that 0.1 M and 1 M solutions were used means that the molarity of the eluted fration [sic] must be over 0.1 M (100 mM)”). Inst. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 9

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

    “In its Response, Patent Owner proposes constructions for several additional terms. Namely, Patent Owner contends that the preamble of claim 1 should be construed as limiting (PO Resp. 12), “to form particles” should be construed to require that the solution becomes clouded (id. at 17), and “the treated sample containing an antibody,” as recited in claim 5, should be interpreted to mean “the sample resulting from performing the method of claim 1, which concludes with removing particles in step 4” (id. 11 at 18). Because interpretation of these claim terms is not necessary to our anticipation or obviousness analyses, we need not construe them. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeOther

    “Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner untimely introduced Exhibits 2201–2207 for the first time during the deposition of Petitioner’s Reply declarant, Dr. Przybycien. Paper 36, 4. Petitioner additionally asserts that the challenged exhibits are inadmissible because they are irrelevant. Id. Patent Owner responds that the objected-to exhibits were timely introduced because they were used to challenge opinions presented by Dr. Przybycien for the first time in conjunction with Petitioner’s Reply. Paper 44, 2. Patent Owner further asserts that the exhibits are relevant because they illuminate gaps in Dr. Przybycien’s Reply testimony. Id. at 3. Because we have not relied on Exhibits 2201–2207, or Dr. Przybycien’s testimony regarding those exhibits in this Final Written Decision, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2201–2207 as moot.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,332,289 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,332,289
• Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2018 · IPR2017-02080 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Google's rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 3–23 because the petition did not show Zydney disclosed the claimed object field.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We have considered Petitioner’s contentions but are not persuaded of any error in our Decision. Our Decision was premised not on a rejection of Petitioner’s proposed formulation of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “object field” limitation recited in claim 3, but instead on Petitioner’s failure to persuade us that Zydney’s “body” maps to the recited object field. A prior art reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Moreover, “[a]nticipation requires that a single reference ‘describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.’” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a claim.” Id. But the disclosure of Zydney relied upon by Petitioner for the object field limitation of claim 3 is, at best, ambiguous.” slip op. at 5

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

    “In our Decision, we found that there was insufficient evidence on the record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4

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

    “record to support Petitioner’s contention that Zydney’s disclosure of a message “body” expressly discloses the recited object field and, further, that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that the claimed object field is inherently anticipated by Zydney. Dec. 17. We explained, in particular, that “[a]lthough Zydney discloses that its voice container includes ‘voice data,’ . . . Petitioner has not shown that voice data necessarily would be included in an ‘object field.’” Id. We, accordingly, determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that the object field limitation of claim 3 is disclosed by Zydney.” slip op. at 4

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

    “recites, in part, “a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant voice message client systems . . . wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice message from one of the plurality of instant voice message client systems, and wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file.” Ex. 1001, 24:15–27 (emphasis added). Petitioner alleges that claims 3–8, 11, 13, and 18–21 are anticipated by Zydney1 and that claims 3–23 also are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Zydney and certain other references (Pet. 6, 11–68), relying in each of the asserted grounds on Zydney as teaching the recited “object field including a digitized audio field” (id. at 17–19, 38).” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,724,622
• C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2018 · IPR2017-01275 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious over the Admitted Prior Art and Betts; Petitioner obtained partial adverse judgment on Ground 2.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Ground 2 based on the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), Petitioner filed a Request for Partial Adverse Judgment against itself with respect to Ground 2, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). See Paper 30 (modifying institution decision to institute on all challenged grounds presented in Petition); Paper 33 (Petitioner’s Request for 1 Patent Owner filed two versions of the Preliminary Response: Paper 6, to which access is restricted to the parties and the Board; and Paper 7, a publicly available, redacted version of Paper 6. 2 Patent Owner filed two versions of the Patent Owner Response: Paper 20, to which access is restricted to the parties and the Board; and Paper 21, a publicly available, redacted version of Paper 20. Partial Adverse Judgment as to Ground 2). We granted Petitioner’s Request for Partial Adverse Judgment on July 5, 2018. Paper 36 (granting adverse judgment as to Ground 2).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; 4 Petitioner defines “Admitted Prior Art” as certain portions of the ’641 patent, including Figure 1. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:21–22, Fig. 1; Ex. 1004 ¶ 86). 5 U.S. Patent No. 3,738,497, issued June 12, 1973 (Ex. 1005) (“Betts”). 6 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’641 patent issued was filed before that date, any citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are to their pre-AIA version. 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 relies on the testimony of Alan Anderson, who testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or a similar discipline, or the equivalent experience, with at least two years of experience in the field of aircraft interior design.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposal, or offer a competing proposal for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.7 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on our review of the evidence and arguments, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Admitted Prior Art lavatory by replacing the flat forward wall with the contoured forward wall of Betts. Petitioner submits convincing argument based on the testimony of Mr. Anderson, that designers of airplane interiors were concerned about adding space to the cabin and that the Betts contoured wall increased interior space. Pet. 22–25 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57–59). Betts itself backs up this testimony by stating that one of the goals of its design is “to provide more passenger room.” Ex. 1005, Abstract. We also agree with Petitioner’s assertion that Figure 1 of Betts depicts a passenger seat further aft in the cabin than it could have been if the wall were flat with no recess, and merely extended up from the bottom portion of the wall. See Betts Fig. 1; Pet. 23–24. Betts therefore depicts how the contoured wall and recess provide more passenger space when compared to a flat, vertical wall, and Betts discusses the ability of its design to save space. As such, Betts adequately supports the proposed modification of the prior art flat forward wall as shown in the Admitted Prior Art. Patent Owner’s argument that flat forward lavatory walls co-existed with the Betts design for years without modification, even if accurate, does not outweigh the more convincing evidence and argument supporting Petitioner’s position based on Betts and the Anderson Declaration. In addition, Patent Owner’s argument that one would need to “totally deconstruct” Betts in order to add a lavatory to Betts misapprehends Petitioner’s proposed modification. Petitioner proposes to replace a lavatory flat forward wall as shown in the Admitted Prior Art with the Betts contoured wall, not add a lavatory behind the Betts contoured wall. See Pet. 22, 24; Reply 4–5. Although we do not apply collateral estoppel for the reasons provided above, we note that our findings regarding the proposed combination and modification are consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in the related case. See B/E Aerospace, 709 F. App’x at 694 (rejecting Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s combination required adding lavatory to Betts). Based on the foregoing, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify the lavatory flat forward wall in the Admitted Prior Art by replacing it with the contoured forward wall of Betts.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,073,641 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,073,641
• Panduit Corp. v. CCS Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2018 · IPR2017-01323 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Eichenberger and Bennett under § 103(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Although there are differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties and their declarants agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree and some amount of professional experience with fiber optic equipment. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a four year technical degree with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in fiber optic equipment design. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis below. However, we note that our analysis would be the same if we adopted either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Based on the evidence of record, we maintain our determination that an optical interconnection module requires an optical connection within the module. See Dec. on Inst. 10. This is consistent with the intrinsic record, particularly the ’600 patent’s disclosure that “the optical paths of connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–56 are optically interconnected by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60, the fiber pairs being formed by the optical fibers.” Ex. 1001, 3:20–24, Fig. 2. As discussed above, the module itself does not require fibers to be plugged into it. Rather, an “optical assembly,” such as that recited in claim 3, is formed by connecting modules via fibers. We further clarify that, because it is an “optical interconnection module,” it must be a module that forms an optical interconnection. This is consistent with the ’600 patent’s disclosure that “[m]odule 60 also includes an optical interconnection section having an optical connector. The preferred connector is an MTP or MPO connector 40.” Ex. 1001, 2:49–51 (emphasis added). In Figure 2, the optical interconnection section optically interconnects with fibers in ribbon 20. The ’600 patent describes that the optical paths of the connector in the optical interconnection section are “immediately adjacent to at least one other optical path for optical alignment with the optical fibers in an optical fiber ribbon.” Ex. 1001, 2:57–60.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We are persuaded by these contentions. Eichenberger discloses that “the connectors 64 have key tabs 69 which limit the orientation of the connector when inserted in connector receptacle 56, in that the connector can only be mated to the receptacle with the key tab point upwards in FIG. 1.” Ex. 1004, 7:52–56. We find Eichenberger’s disclosure of a key on the connector for proper mating with the adapter teaches an adapter having a key. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 53. We further credit Dr. DeCusatis’s testimony that “[a] key 69 would provide no orientation limitation without a compatible, keyed adapter 56 configured to receive the key 69.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. We further find a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a key on adapter 56 to properly mate the keyed connector with the adapter, to the extent this is not taught, as we find it is. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 54; Ex. 1004, 7:52–56.” slip op. at 24

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

    “c. Conclusion as to Claim 3 In summary, we find that the combination of Eichenberger and Bennett teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, and we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to, and would have been motivated to, combine the teachings of Eichenberger and Bennett in the manner asserted. Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness as to any of the challenged claims. Having considered the full record developed during trial, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 3 would have been obvious based on Eichenberger and Bennett under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 4. Dependent Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and recites that “all of said optical paths remain with their respective color from one module to another.” Petitioner argues that “[t]he straight ribbon illustrated in modified Fig. 3 shows that all colors are connected to the same colors.” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79). Although Patent Owner does not provide specific arguments regarding claim 4, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability, as discussed above. We agree with Petitioner that all of the optical paths stay with their respective colors from one module to another in Petitioner’s proposed configuration because, as discussed above with respect to claim 3, the optical paths stay with their respective colors between the modules. Therefore, having considered the full record developed during trial, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 would have been obvious based on Eichenberger and Bennett under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 6,758,600 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,758,600
• Panduit Corp. v. CCS Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2018 · IPR2017-01375 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 7, and 11 are unpatentable under § 103: claim 6 over Toyooka, Eichenberger, and Giebel; claim 7 over Toyooka and Eichenberger; and claim 11 over Toyooka and Giebel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Although there are differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties and their declarants agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree and some amount of professional experience with fiber optic equipment. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a four year technical degree with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in fiber optic equipment design. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis below. However, we note that our analysis would be the same if we adopted either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We see nothing the record before us indicating that we should deviate from our construction of the term “optical ribbon” in the Final Written Decision in IPR2016-01648. See IPR2016-01648, Paper 27, 10–19. We, therefore, adopt the construction in that case—that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “optical ribbon” in view of the specification of the ’227 patent “encompasses optical fibers that are bonded together in a generally planar array or optical fibers that are grouped and aligned in a generally planar array.” IPR2016-01648, Paper 27, 18–19. We apply this construction below in our analysis of the grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. Remaining Terms In our Decision on Institution, we determined that the remaining terms of the challenged claims did not require express constructions at that time. Dec. on Inst. 19. Based on the record developed during trial, we maintain our initial determination that the remaining terms of the challenged claims do not require express constructions.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

  Patent outcomesUS 6,869,227 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,869,227
• C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01276 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8 and 10–16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Admitted Prior Art and Betts.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Ground 2 based on the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), Petitioner filed a Request for Partial Adverse Judgment against itself with respect to Ground 2, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). See Paper 30 (modifying institution decision to institute on all challenged grounds presented in Petition); Paper 33 (Petitioner’s Request for 1 Patent Owner filed two versions of the Preliminary Response: Paper 6, to which access is restricted to the parties and the Board; and Paper 7, a publicly available, redacted version of Paper 6. 2 Patent Owner filed two versions of the Patent Owner Response: Paper 21, to which access is restricted to the parties and the Board; and Paper 22, a publicly available, redacted version of Paper 21. Partial Adverse Judgment as to Ground 2). We granted Petitioner’s Request for Partial Adverse Judgment on July 5, 2018. Paper 36 (granting adverse judgment as to Ground 2).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Based on our review of the evidence and arguments, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Admitted Prior Art lavatory by replacing the flat forward wall with the contoured forward wall of Betts. Petitioner submits convincing argument, based on the testimony of Mr. Anderson, that designers of airplane interiors were concerned about adding space to the cabin and that the Betts contoured wall increased interior space. Pet. 22–25 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57–59). Betts itself backs up this testimony by stating that one of the goals of its design is “to provide more passenger room.” Ex. 1005, Abstract. We also agree with Petitioner’s assertion that Figure 1 of Betts depicts a passenger seat further aft in the cabin than it could have been if the wall were flat with no recess, and merely extended up from the bottom portion of the wall. See Betts Fig. 1; Pet. 23–24. Betts therefore depicts how the contoured wall and recess provide more passenger space when compared to a flat, vertical wall, and Betts discusses the ability of its design to save space. As such, Betts adequately supports the proposed modification of the prior art flat forward wall as shown in the Admitted Prior Art. Patent Owner’s argument that flat forward lavatory walls co-existed with the Betts design for years without modification, even if accurate, does not outweigh the more convincing evidence and argument supporting Petitioner’s position based on Betts and the Anderson Declaration. In addition, Patent Owner’s argument that one would need to “totally deconstruct” Betts in order to add a lavatory to Betts misapprehends Petitioner’s proposed modification. Petitioner proposes to replace a lavatory flat forward wall as shown in the Admitted Prior Art with the Betts contoured wall, not add a lavatory behind the Betts contoured wall. See Pet. 22, 24; Reply 4–5. Although we do not apply collateral estoppel for the reasons provided above, we note that our findings regarding the proposed combination and modification are consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in the related case. See B/E Aerospace, 709 F. App’x at 694 (rejecting Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s combination required adding lavatory to Betts). Based on the foregoing, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify the lavatory flat forward wall in the Admitted Prior Art by replacing it with the contoured forward wall of Betts.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that use of common sense to supply a missing limitation must be carefully circumscribed and requires supporting evidence in the situation presented here, but disagree that Petitioner has failed to support its obviousness argument with proper reasoning and evidence. Patent Owner correctly notes that in K/S HIMPP, the court held that when a limitation “presents more than a peripheral issue,” determination of patentability requires a “core factual finding” that in turn requires “point[ing] to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.” K/S HIMPP, 751 F.3d at 1365 (quoting In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Similarly, in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that common sense, common wisdom, and common knowledge may be properly considered in an obviousness analysis, but “cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” Arendi distinguished the situation involving a “central” limitation, at issue in 9 Patent Owner moves to exclude the three references and related testimony, which we deny for the reasons discussed below. See infra II.D. Arendi, from the situation in Perfect Web, where common sense was used to supply a missing limitation. See Perfect Web Techs., Ins. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In Perfect Web, the court affirmed a summary judgment decision finding claims invalid as obvious, where the lower court determined that a missing limitation would have been obvious based on common sense, even without reliance on record evidence such as expert testimony. See id. at 1329 (“[U]se of common sense does not require a ‘specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference,’ only a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations.”), id. at 1330 (“No expert opinion is required to appreciate the potential value to persons of such skill in this art of [the missing limitation].”). We need not reach the issue of whether the “second recess” is so peripheral that Petitioner need not have pointed to evidence or expert opinions to support its argument that the missing limitation would have been obvious. Petitioner has supplied reasoned explanation and record evidence to support its position. Petitioner relies on the testimony of Mr. Anderson, who stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as a seat is moved further aft the seat support necessarily is also moved further aft. As the seat is moved aft the feet of the seat support may come into contact with the lower section of the wall. Creating one or more recesses to accommodate whatever portion(s) of the seat support that would contact the forward wall of the enclosure is the obvious solution to this known problem. Ex. 1004 ¶ 74; see also id. at ¶ 191.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “accorded substantial weight, its proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Patent Owner only addresses nexus in the context of its argument regarding commercial success. PO Resp. 37–38. Patent Owner argues that nexus here “is presumed” because “[t]here is no dispute that [Patent Owner’s] Spacewall product, which has been so commercially successful, is an embodiment of the patent.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 2093, 36:16–37:3). Patent Owner also asserts that other documents show that the commercial success of the Spacewall product stemmed from the “curved shape” of the lavatory forward wall or the “lavatory structure design.” Id. (citing Ex. 2078; Ex. 2090, 136:14–137:11). Such general allegations that Patent Owner’s product “is an embodiment of the patent” and led to sales due to a “curved design” ordinarily fail to establish that a product contains all of the limitations of the claim at issue, which is necessary to trigger a presumption of nexus. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that nexus is presumed when patentee establishes that commercial product is an embodiment of the claimed invention). However, Petitioner did not address the presumption of nexus issue in the Petition or the Reply, and did not argue that Patent Owner’s Spacewall product was not covered by the challenged claims here. See Reply 15–16; Tr. 28:10–13, 93:1–2 (Petitioner acknowledging at the oral hearing that it did not dispute that Patent Owner’s product met the limitations of the challenged claims). Accordingly, we apply a presumption of nexus here. Petitioner argues that nexus cannot be established because all of the claim limitations were known in the prior art. See Pet. 62. Petitioner also argues that none of Patent Owner’s evidence ties the “second recess” to the secondary considerations. Reply 15–16. These arguments do not address the presumption of nexus issue, and improperly suggest that Patent Owner must tie the objective indicia to the supposedly new feature in the claims, the second recess. See WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1330 (“[P]roof of nexus is not limited to only when objective evidence is tied to the supposedly ‘new’ feature(s).”). The arguments also fail to rebut the presumption, which requires reliance on evidence of record to successfully rebut the presumption. See id. at 1329 (holding that the presumption of a nexus cannot be rebutted adequately by argument alone). Although we find a presumption of a nexus, we will consider Petitioner’s arguments regarding a lack of nexus, to the extent they also bear on the weight we give any alleged objective indicia, where appropriate below.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 9,440,742 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,440,742
• Apotex Inc. / Apotex Corp. v. Celgene CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2018 · IPR2018-00685 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: the obviousness grounds repeated substantially the same art and arguments considered in prosecution, and the press release was not shown to be a printed publication.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “As discussed above in Section D2, the Examiner was ultimately persuaded that Applicant’s evidence of unexpected results—i.e., the overall response rate elicited by lenalidomide in pretreated mantle cell lymphoma patients—outweighed the evidence supporting his initial determination that it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use lenalidomide to treat mantle cell lymphoma given the combined teachings of Zeldis, Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann. Ex. 2007, 81–82.” slip op. at 24

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

    “As we have determined that Petitioner has not established that Celgene Press Release is available as a prior art printed publication, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that the subject matter of claims 1–4, 8, 9, 15, and 20 of the ’929 patent is anticipated by the Celgene Press Release. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8, 9, 15, and 20 of the ’929 patent on the ground of anticipation by the Celgene Press Release.” slip op. at 31

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera, 545 F.3d at 1350). A party seeking to introduce a reference “should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.” In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Philips Elec. & Pharm. Indus. Corp. v. Thermal & Elecs. Indus., Inc., 450 F.2d 1164, 1171 (3d Cir. 1971)). As explained by the Federal Circuit, a “determination of whether a reference is a ‘printed publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves a case-by-case 28 inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsNot reached

    “support patentability.” Id. Paragraph 109 of Dr. Thirman’s Declaration is nearly identical to the above passage from the Petition. Following the summary of those prior art teachings, Dr. Thirman asserts “[t]hus, the alleged unexpected properties would have been expected” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 110), but provides no further evidentiary support for the proposition that the results obtained by treating relapsed and/or refractory MCL with lenalidomide would have been expected. Again, during prosecution, the Examiner maintained that the combined prior art (Zeldis, Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann) would have given one of ordinary skill in the art a reason to use lenalidomide to treat patients with relapsed and/or refractory mantle cell lymphoma, but concluded that the evidence of obviousness was outweighed by Applicant’s evidence of unexpected results—namely, a 28% overall response rate in patients with relapsed and/or refractory mantle cell lymphoma. Although Drach—given its particular focus on treating mantle cell lymphoma—is stronger evidence than Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to treat MCL patients with lenalidomide, Drach is no more informative as to expected results than the references the Examiner relied on in making out a prima facie case of obviousness, i.e., Damaj, Wilson, and Kaufmann. Essentially, Petitioner and Dr. Thirman disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that, on balance, the subject matter of the challenged claims would not have been obvious, in light of the level of response in patients 25 with relapsed and/or refractory MCL (as described in Dr. Zhang’s Declaration and the underlying Goy reference), despite one of ordinary skill in the art having had a reason to administer lenalidomide to treat MCL.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,741,929
• Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 20, 2018 · IPR2017-01053 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the proposed combinations lacked a persuasive reason to make the required modifications and meet the claimed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Petitioner submits that such a person would have had a Doctorate in microbiology or chemistry (or a related field) with at least a few years of experience in the development of ophthalmic formulations. Pet. 7. Alternatively, in Petitioner’s view, that person would have had a Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree combined with significant (5 years or more) practical experience developing ophthalmic formulations. Id. Patent Owner, for its part, advances a definition that “does not differ materially” from that proposed by Petitioner. Resp. 5. Petitioner’s definition is comparable to the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art. The prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent more specified findings are required, we adopt the definition proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 7. We observe, however, that there is no appreciable difference between the parties’ respective definitions that would “materially” alter the outcome of this decision based on our acceptance of one definition over the other. Resp. 5.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 5–7; Dec. 7–8. Patent Owner tacitly agrees. See Resp. 1 (stating that a “self-preserved” composition is “one that has sufficient antimicrobial activity to pass standard tests for ‘preservative efficacy’ without needing a conventional preservative”). Accordingly, for reasons set forth in our decision instituting review in the Apotex IPR, we determine that: (a) The preamble term “self-preserved” breathes life and meaning into the claims, and is construed as a limitation of claims 1–28; and (b) The broadest reasonable interpretation of “self-preserved” compositions is “compositions that do not contain a conventional antimicrobial preservative.” Apotex IPR, Paper 9, 5–6; Dec. 7–8. Schneider, which is asserted in each ground of unpatentability stated in the Petition, informs that edetate disodium (“EDTA”) and benzalkonium chloride (“BAC”) were conventional antimicrobial preservatives known and available at the time of the invention—an issue not meaningfully disputed by Petitioner. Ex. 1007, 7:14–21; Pet. 15. Our claim construction findings are supported by the specification of the ’299 patent, which states that “[t]he multi-dose compositions of the present invention, which do not contain a conventional antimicrobial preservative, are referred to herein as being ‘self-preserved’.” Ex 1001, 3:27–29. The specification identifies BAC as an example of a conventional antimicrobial preservative excluded from the self-preserved composition of the challenged claims. Id. at 4:23–25. No other claim term requires express construction for the purposes of this decision. See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner argues that we should adopt the claim construction resolved in the Apotex IPR, as we did in the decision on institution in this case. Pet. 5–7; Dec. 7–8. Patent Owner tacitly agrees. See Resp. 1 (stating that a “self-preserved” composition is “one that has sufficient antimicrobial activity to pass standard tests for ‘preservative efficacy’ without needing a conventional preservative”). Accordingly, for reasons set forth in our decision instituting review in the Apotex IPR, we determine that: (a) The preamble term “self-preserved” breathes life and meaning into the claims, and is construed as a limitation of claims 1–28; and (b) The broadest reasonable interpretation of “self-preserved” compositions is “compositions that do not contain a conventional antimicrobial preservative.” Apotex IPR, Paper 9, 5–6; Dec. 7–8. Schneider, which is asserted in each ground of unpatentability stated in the Petition, informs that edetate disodium (“EDTA”) and benzalkonium chloride (“BAC”) were conventional antimicrobial preservatives known and available at the time of the invention—an issue not meaningfully disputed by Petitioner. Ex. 1007, 7:14–21; Pet. 15. Our claim construction findings are supported by the specification of” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have retained as much of” Formulation A “as feasible, as this was already an FDA-approved formulation, marketed as Travatan®.” Pet. 15; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 46–47. But Petitioner’s challenge incongruously depends on at least six modifications to Formulation A; seven, if attaining UPS preservative efficacy requirements is not an inherent property of the modified composition. Petitioner does not address, much less explain, how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan, undertaking those six or seven modifications, would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a “self-preserved” composition using zinc as the sole preservative—in a field where zinc “had never before been the sole preservative in a marketed ophthalmic drug.” Resp. 9; Ex. 2023 ¶ 46; Ex. 2025 ¶ 30. The Petition does not articulate a rational reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art, setting out to improve Formulation A, would have selected the particular combination of ingredients required by claim 1. Formulation A bears almost no resemblance to the composition of claim 1, lacking three of the four required ingredients (zinc ions, sorbitol, and propylene glycol) and containing two others (BAC and EDTA) that are excluded by the “self-preserving” terms of the claim. Compare Ex. 1001, claim 1, with Ex. 1007, 9:25–42 (Table, Formulation A). And even if we set aside those hurdles, the challenge fails for lack of persuasive evidence showing how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have resolved to include the claimed ingredients in the specified concentrations, while at the same time limiting anionic species (to the extent included) to a concentration of “less than 15 mM.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. Petitioner fails to establish that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Schneider, Xia, and Chowhan—with or without the additional disclosure of Gadd. Pet. 2–3.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,268,299 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,268,299

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.