• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated Douglas–Mark and Hamilton-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 10. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. For this decision, as in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level, which is supported by credible testimonial evidence and is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Our decision would be the same, however, if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; PO Resp. 10. However, the parties contest two material claim-construction issues which we address below. To the extent that the parties’ positions depend on interpreting other claim language in a particular way, we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that limitation 1.2 must be performed before limitations 1.3 or 1.4. See Ex. 1001, 35:21–24. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citing Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The evidence suggests that a “target printer” is any printer that is ultimately selected for fabricating the object, and such a printer could send its configuration information either before or after that determination is made in limitation 1.2. This interpretation does not render the word “target” meaningless. At some point, a printer must be determined to be the target printer, which is the one intended to ultimately fabricate the three-dimensional object. But the target printer still exists, and is capable of being queried, before that determination is made. We find the examples in the ’774 patent pertinent to this question. The ’774 patent states that “the target printer may include more than one printer.” Ex. 1001, 18:66–67. In discussing the step of “query target printer for properties 306” (Fig. 3A), the ’774 patent states that “[i]n one aspect, numerous queries are sent to numerous printers, e.g., for use in selecting one or more of the printers as the target printer.” Id. at 19:8–10. Alternatively, “the query is sent to a printer that is not necessarily the target printer as described herein, e.g., when the query or information received from a response to the query is used for the selection of the target printer.” Id. at 19:11–14. Importantly, the second embodiment states that the queried printer “is not necessarily the target printer,” suggesting that the queried printer could be the target printer even before it is determined to be such. Id. at 19:11–12 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “target printer” can be determined after the query recited in limitation 1.3 or the reception of configuration information recited in limitation 1.4. Thus, the evidence does not impose an ordering between limitations 1.2 and 1.3 or between limitations 1.2 and 1.4. The evidence also does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the two reverse-order examples in the ’774 patent are unclaimed embodiments.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree that Petitioner’s arguments are based on impermissible hindsight, because they are based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself, as we discuss below. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,886,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,886,774
• Charles River Laboratories, Inc. v. Seikagaku CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2026 · IPR2025-00440 · APJ Tawen Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Mizumura with either the ’498 PCT or McClymont; the Revised Contingent Motion to Amend proposing claim 22 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “overlap to a significant degree, i.e., a person with a Ph.D. in a discipline related to biological sciences and having had at least two years of work experience. However, the parties’ proposals differ slightly in the specific subjects in which a POSA would have had a doctoral degree, and whether the person’s work experience must have been directly related to horseshoe crab Factor C. As an initial matter, we find that a rigid requirement as to the subject of a POSA’s doctoral degree (e.g., biochemical engineering, enzymology), or experience working specifically with horseshoe crab proteins, is not consistent with the evidence of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 20:23–21:2 (Dr. Schaefer testifying that the fact the “name of [his] Ph.D. is immunology . . . does not change the fact that the core of [his] thesis training was really in molecular biology”), 22:3–15 (explaining “the fact that the production of proteins recombinantly is mostly species agnostic”); Ex. 1069, 45:20–47:17 (Dr. Morris testifying that whether a person is a POSA depends on the person’s “experience, [ ] publications,” and work done for the Ph.D. rather than the name of the Ph.D. program). We also find that evidence of record supports Petitioner’s assertion that, for purposes of defining a POSA, “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” See, e.g., Pet. 19; Ex. 1065, 99:14–100:3. with respect to the claims of the ’318 patent would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, biochemistry, or a related discipline, and about two years of experience with cloning genes, expressing cloned genes as proteins, and/or characterizing such cloned genes and proteins, with more education being able to substitute for experience, and vice versa. A POSA may also have collaborated with others, including those with specific experience in utilizing or assessing horseshoe crab Factor C for endotoxin detection and quantitation.” slip op. at 13

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

    “C. Claim Construction The parties agree that “the terms in claim 21 can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning for purposes of this proceeding” without further construction. Pet. 19–20; PO Resp. 11. Because express claim construction is not needed to resolve the issues in this case, we need not, and do not, construe expressly any claim term for purposes of this 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 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Carrying Out the Invention section, that “[t]he Factor C of the present invention is a Factor C derived from a horseshoe crab,” and states later in the same section that “[e]xamples of the horseshoe crab include . . . Limulus polyphemus.” Ex. 1006, 40. However, none of the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner relate directly to L. polyphemus; instead, the remaining portions of ’767 application cited by Patent Owner are directed to other species, in particular the Japanese horseshoe crab T. tridentatus. Further, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Schaefer, conceded that the ’767 application does not contain Factor C sequence information for L. polyphemus. See, e.g., Ex. 1067, 44:25–45:23. Although “[n]o length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an invention,” Falko-Gunter, 448 F.3d at 1365–1366, we are persuaded that a POSA would not, based on the totality of the above disclosures, reasonably understand that the inventors were in possession of the claimed HEK-293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, in view of the state of the art as of December 10, 2013. In this regard, we note that adequate written description of a biological molecule, such as a HEK293 recombinant L. polyphemus Factor C protein, requires “more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method for isolating it”; instead, what is required is “‘a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,’ not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention.” The Regents of the” slip op. at 21

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

    “Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Neither do we see Petitioner’s arguments regarding the December 10, 2013 priority date to be “mutually opposed” as Dr. Schaefer testified. Ex. 1067, 216:4– 24. Instead, we credit evidence of record, including Dr. Jain’s testimony and the February 22, 2018 Mizumura Declaration, that existence of the full sequence would permit a more complete analysis and that such an analysis would provide a POSA with a reasonable expectation that the claimed L. polyphemus recombinant protein would have a residual activity within the claimed range. See, e.g., Ex. 1029, 2–5; Ex. 1010, 48; Ex. 1065, 117:14– 130:24 (explaining that comparison of partial sequences in the Tokunaga 1991 publication showed “difference around the cleavage site” between T. tridentatus and L. polyphemus but comparison of the full sequence revealed that “the catalytic triad of histidine, serine, aspartate . . . to be more similar between Tachypleus and Limulus”). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner’s reliance on a statement made by Dr. Mizumura in a declaration submitted during prosecution of the ’767 Application fails to fill the gap in the analysis” regarding reasonable expectation of success, because the declaration “offers no evidence of the percentage of conserved amino acid substitutions that exist to support the conclusion that a POSA would have expected residual activity to be maintained between Tachypleus tridentatus and Limulus polyphemus” PO Resp. 47. However, as noted above, Dr. Mizumura provides an alignment of Factor C proteins from the two different species of horseshoe crab, determines that the similarity between the amino acid sequence is 99.5%, states that the amino acid residues that can undergo N-type sugar chain that L. polyphemus, like T. tridentatus, would also be less susceptible to inhibition by ions. Ex. 1029, 4–5. For the reasons discussed above, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s reasonable expectation of success argument is “nothing more than conclusory assertions with no support.” PO Resp. 46. Rather, we find Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSA would have had reason to combine the teachings of Mizumura and the ’498 PCT, with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the Factor C protein recited in claim 21.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,236,318 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,236,318
• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00248 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–12 are unpatentable as anticipated by Huang2; claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious over Huang2 and Kumbar. Lee grounds failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 18– 19 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C5). 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. 5–6. 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

    “A patentee “may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chemicals Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (“[A]ny special definition given to a word must be clearly defined in the specification.”), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[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.” Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Among the criteria to consider in whether the patentee acted as a lexicographer to define a claim term include (a) whether the patent specification included the statement in question under a section for marks, (c) whether the sentence uses the term “refer to,” which generally “conveys an intent for [that sentence] to be definitional,” and (d) whether there are other non-limiting terms (e.g., “for example,” or “include”) that contradict a definitional intent. Alnylam Pharms., Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., 138 F.4th 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (alteration in original). 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, 13:6–7. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at issue sets out “major peaks” in quotation marks, and then uses the term “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.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “As discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that the sentence it cites from the Specification of the ’223 patent bears sufficient hallmarks of lexicography. However, the Specification nonetheless lacks any indication that so-called “minor peaks” are a necessary component of the claimed invention. “Although it is firmly settled that an applicant may act as a 9 Figure 8B does not contain “major peaks” despite clearly depicting two “peaks higher than the average of the [three or possibly four] peaks in the result” because none of the peaks is a reflection of fiber alignment. 10 After presenting claim construction arguments based on Ayres 2008, Patent Owner confusingly states: “Finally, whether Ayres-2008 supports [Patent Owner’s] construction is irrelevant.” PO Sur-Reply 5 (emphasis added). definition that is contrary to the ordinary meaning of a claim term unless it communicates a deliberate and clear preference for this alternative definition.” Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). There is no indication that the patentee sought to require “minor peaks” within the scope of the claimed invention. Nor are we persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the scope of the term “major peaks” to require non-major peaks. We interpret the Specification’s statement that “‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result” (Ex. 1001, 13:6–7) to be teaching a person of ordinary skill in the art how to identify or discern “major peaks,” which indicate a principal axis of alignment, from any non-major peaks, which would be caused by something else. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider “major peaks” as used in the ’223 patent as referring to peaks that reflect the sole axis or primary axis of fiber alignment. See, e.g., id. at code (54) (“ALIGNED FIBER AND METHOD OF USE THEREOF”), code (57) (“A scaffold comprising an aligned fiber.”), 1:6–7 (“The invention relates to an aligned fiber and method of use thereof.”), 1:11–12 (“The invention relates to a scaffold comprising an aligned fiber.”), 13:16–17 (“Alignment of the fibers in the scaffold may be measured by a fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis.”). This would certainly include peaks materially higher than the average of the peaks in the result, but it would not be limited to situations involving peaks of different heights or require so-called minor peaks. Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we do not construe the claims to require non-major peaks.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner argues that, for the aligned sample, a major peak occurs at about 90° as identified by Petitioner’s annotation (red arrow). Pet. 30–31. As support, Petitioner directs us to Huang2’s explicit description of what the peak indicates, namely that “[t]he narrow peak of the normalized intensity values in anisotropic [aligned] matrices (Figure 1C) indicated that PCL/Coll nanofibers aligned along a single axis (Fig. 1B).” Id. at 31 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1005, 1794). Patent Owner disputes that the illustrated peak is a major peak solely based on the lack of any lesser peaks. See PO Resp. 13 (“[T]he height of the sole peak is identical to—not higher than—the average height of the peaks in the result.”). As discussed above, however, we do not construe “major peaks” as requiring the existence of non-major peaks. We find that the illustrated peak in the Aniso plot of the FFT analysis results (Figure 1C) is a major peak within the meaning of the claim. The evidence in support of this finding is overwhelming. First, the term “Aniso” as used in Huang2 refers to fibers “with alignment.” Ex. 1005, 1792. Huang2 describes fabricating such matrices of aligned fibers with electrospinning, the same method used to impart alignment in the ’223 patent. Id. at 1791–92. Huang2 visually confirms that the fibers in fact are aligned via scanning electron microscopy. Id. at Fig. 1B. Further, Huang2 explicitly states that the peak illustrated in the Aniso plot of the FFT analysis results (Figure 1C) is caused by the fact that the “PCL/Coll nanofibers aligned along a single axis (Fig. 1B).” Id. at 1794. This is precisely what electrospinning may yield aligned fibers and images of aligned fibers will yield FFT results with major peaks. Ex. 1001, 2:18–19, 4:46–60, 13:16–26. Additionally, Huang2 itself considers the peak illustrated in the Aniso plot of the FFT analysis to be significant, stating: “In contrast [to the Aniso plot], the lack of a significant peak for the fibers collected on a stationary surface [(i.e., without electrospinning)] demonstrated no preferred fiber orientation in the isotropic matrices” (i.e., the Iso plot). Ex. 1005, 1794. Indeed, the asserted major peak in the Aniso plot shown in Huang2’s Figure 1C is higher than any other data point on the plot. For these reasons, we find the peak to be a major peak.15 Petitioner acknowledges that Figure 1C only reports its results” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,137,223 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman
  Patents in suitUS 10,137,223
• Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00680 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103 over Gregorio, Ramsay, Tierling, Rossi, and Aldrich; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Gregorio, Ramsay, Wakuda, Rossi, and Aldrich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” See PO Resp. 4. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’337 patent specification.” slip op. at 9

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

    “An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claim 2 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7. Construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionTerm construed board ownMixed

    “supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” to portions of steps 706 and 708 of the flow diagram algorithm of Figure 7A, as described above. Thus, the control component requires a microprocessor and memory with algorithmic structure including a timing algorithm or similar coding for creating a control output signal that flips to control the direction of current flow through a coil (e.g., coil 514, Fig. 5, coil 626, Fig. 6), where the coil is structure that corresponds to the recited “driving component,” as noted above.10 We adopt the District Court’s conclusion in the Apple litigation that the “control component” structure itself does not require an H-bridge switch, but only requires that the processor generates the “d” inputs configured to operate a switch or other circuit; and further that the structure does not require does not require computing initial default values as specified in step 702 of Figure 7A (i.e., values not specified by a user). Ex. 3001, 30–33, 35. This is in accord with settled law that limits the structure to that necessary to 10 “Rather than using a formal timer mechanism, certain implementations may simply employ counted loops or other simple programming techniques for periodically carrying out tasks.” Ex. 1001, 7:7–10. perform the claimed function. 11 By the same token, we modify the District Court’s construction to the extent it would require, based on such steps as 706, 710, and 716, a specific order of the steps of generating the “p” and “d” values. The claims only require the control component to control the power supply to cause oscillation at a specified frequency and amplitude, but do not require the frequency value to be generated before the amplitude value, or vice versa.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The record, including testimony by Dr. Hannaford (Ex. 1003; Ex. 1049), supports Petitioner’s rationale, and shows that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Gregorio, Ramsay, and Wakuda in the manner proposed. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s showing for combining these references with any particularity. See generally PO Resp. We discuss below Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s showing as to limitation 2.f based on the combination of Gregorio and Ramsay is conclusory.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,860,337 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,860,337
• Apple Inc. v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00255 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 4, and 6–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Bhattacharya and Zeng, and over Bhattacharya, Zeng, and Spain; claims 1, 3, and 11 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Second, the key differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention is that Patent Owner asserts “experience in wireless telecommunications and cellular technology is necessary,” as well as a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology with two years of industry experience working in the same, would be required. PO Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 46); see also id. 44– 45. The ’104 patent is directed to locating a wireless mobile device in a geographic region. Ex. 1001, 1:13–20; PO Resp. 44. Bhattacharya is 9 Patent Owner refers to IPR2024-01209, but the correct citation is IPR2023- 01209. See PO Resp. 22. 1005, code (57), ¶¶ 1, 13; PO Resp. 44. Zeng is directed to handoff from one cell to another in a wireless cellular communication system to achieve continuous service. Ex. 1006, 1; PO Resp. 44. Spain is directed to a method for locating the concentration of mobile radio traffic in a coverage area. Ex. 1007, code (54), ¶¶ 1, 11; PO Resp. 44. We find that there is support in the ’104 patent and prior art consistent with Patent Owner’s assertion that the qualifications of a person of skill in the art would include knowledge of radio navigation and mobile communications technology. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “In this case, Patent Owner attempts to make much of Dr. Sundaresan’s statement that he had been informed of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 41–43. Dr. Sundaresan’s testimony, however, set forth this understanding of the requisite level of skill in the art (Ex. 1003 ¶ 8). In his supplemental declaration, Dr. Sundaresan further testifies that: I agreed with this POSITA definition when preparing the Declaration, and I continue to hold the opinion that the POSITA definition is both correct and appropriate based on the disclosures of the ’104 patent and the prior art analyzed in the Declaration. Ex. 1055 ¶ 17. Dr. Sundaresan further testifies that “[i]f I did not agree with the POSITA definition, then it would not have been included in paragraph 8 of the Declaration.” Id. ¶ 18. Dr. Sundaresan’s inclusion of the definition of the level of ordinary skill in his original declaration indicates that he agrees with the definition, as confirmed by his cited subsequent testimony. We note that, even with Patent Owner’s arguments, the record is clear that Patent Owner was on notice of Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill at the time of the Petition. Pet. 7; cf. Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (holding that Petitioner is not required to anticipate all arguments in its Petition and allowing consideration of reply where patent owner had sufficient notice of petitioner’s position and adequate opportunity to respond).” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner adequately establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to reach the Bhattacharya-Zeng combination with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 44

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

    “explained below, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s additional requirement of evaluating the calibration data to determine the boundaries of the area represented by a grid point should not be included in the construction of either “grid point” or “non-uniform grid point.” Instead, based on the full record, we discern no reason to alter our prior construction of “grid point” as “a point associated with representative calibration data for an area” and maintain that construction for this Final Written Decision. The construction of “grid point” we adopt is supported by the Specification of the ’104 patent. Namely, the ’104 patent discloses that “[i]n general, a non-uniform grid point (NUG) may represent the signal characteristics and/or calibration data over a given region,” and “NUGs represent an area of collected calibration data.”18 Ex. 1001, 3:50–60. The district court identified the second quoted passage, which is identically recited in the ’104 patent (see Ex. 2018, 3:56–60) as “provid[ing] a clear indication of the meaning of ‘grid point.’” Ex. 2012, 19 (emphasis added). We agree with the district court’s analysis. Although the ’104 patent does not explain how a generic “grid point” might differ from the described “nonuniform grid point,” we do not find this distinction pertinent to construing “grid point” in this case because neither party raises this issue. Also, based on the claim wording “non-uniform grid point,” a “non-uniform grid point” is a type of grid point. See Pet. Reply 3 (explaining why that plain meaning supports Petitioner’s proposed construction). Furthermore, the district court construed “grid point” only, not “non-uniform grid point.” Ex. 2012, 18–20.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,561,104 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,561,104
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00417 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–12, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda-322.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The Specification of the ’250 patent describes its technical field as relating to a smart card that may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip with antenna components for operating in contactless modes. Ex. 1001, 1:37–54. The Specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See, e.g., id. at 3:14–39. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 7.5” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, for several reasons. Patent Owner first argues that Dr. van der Weide lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 27–38 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71). According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 22–23 (citations omitted). Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededTerm construed board ownMixed

    “appears in independent claims 1 and 18) should be construed as “a component in a booster antenna for coupling with a module antenna connected to an integrated circuit.” PO Resp. 15–16. We determine that it is unnecessary to construe this claim term for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[W]e need only construe 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))). As we explain herein, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Takeda-322 renders the recited “coupler coil” obvious even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Section III(G)(2)(b), infra.” slip op. at 13

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

    “to the extent Takeda-322 does not expressly teach a single wire implementation, such an implementation would have been obvious because it was a known, conventional, technique and because it would lead to obvious and predictable results while avoiding drawbacks of multiple wires. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63; Ex. 1012, 3:54–60, 4:26–36, 5:35– 60 (Ayala suggesting use of single wire)). Petitioner further argues, with supporting evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation. Id. The preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had both reason and a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation, and Patent Owner does not dispute the argument. We, thus, determine that a single-wire embodiment of Takeda-322 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,033,250 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,033,250
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01519 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9–12, 15, 16, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller, with Peng added for claims 21–23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In the Decision to Institute, we declined to construe this term as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C § 112(f). Dec. to Inst. 9–12. Although Petitioner disagrees and asserts that the term “device for stereophotogrammetry” should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Petitioner presents no arguments other than those in the Petition that we addressed in the Decision to Institute. Reply 7–8. Petitioner further acknowledges that “an express construction may not be necessary for the Board to evaluate patentability.” Id. at 8. For the reasons discussed in the Decision to Institute, we do not construe device for stereophotogrammetry configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Our Decision to Institute applied the plain and ordinary meaning to this term without any express construction to the remaining language of this limitation, including “configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Dec. to Inst. 9–11. In the context of the challenged claims, the parties dispute the implications of the plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the extrinsic evidence, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics are angled, but instead means that they each view a subject from different angles.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “We also agree with Petitioner that “the preamble here is not limiting, because the body of the claim provides a complete description of the device.” Reply 6–7 (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The preamble for claim 1 recites “[a] device for stereophotogrammetry,” but “[g]enerally, the preamble does not limit the claims.” Ex. 1022, 11:42; Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Regardless, as Petitioner notes, no “canon of claim construction is absolute in its application and [] some surplusage may exist in some claims.” Reply 7 (alteration in original) (quoting Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 527 F.3d 1300, 1312 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (acknowledging that proper construction of “remote interface” arguably “render[s] the term ‘public’ in [a dependent claim] surplusage”)).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Treuilett discloses the actual focal length of their lenses, but Dr. Otto states that a person of ordinary skill would understand such devices may be used with any lens suitable to the subject. Pet. 50. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Otto’s testimony provides sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the proposition that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to select the requisite lenses to achieve the results recited in claim 11. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teaching of Plassmann, Treuilitt, and Staller and that their combined teachings would have disclosed or suggested the subject matter of claim 11 to a person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 10,681,334 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,334
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01518 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8–12, 15, 16, and 20–23 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller, with Kingslake or Peng as applicable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. Rather, we conclude that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics’ optical axes are angled, but instead means that the sub-optics each view a subject from a different angle, as Petitioner argues. Ex. 1020, 11:43–45; Pet. Reply 7. Specifically, this limitation recites that the two sub-optics are “configured for a simultaneous acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Ex. 1020, 11:43–45. Notably, “according to two different angles” directly follows “two views,” rather than directly following “configured.” Id. And “view” means “[a] scene or an arrangement of subject material for a photograph,” according to a technical dictionary provided by Patent Owner. Ex. 2014,7 210 (defining “view”). In other words, the term “view” itself refers to viewed subject material—a target subject.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not substantively address the differences in their proposed definitions for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply. 8; PO Resp. 23; see generally PO Sur-reply. Moreover, the parties agree that which definition we adopt does not substantively impact our analysis of the parties’ arguments concerning unpatentability. Tr. 29:19–30:9, 75:20–25. Because Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’253 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). In addition, we do not find sufficient support in the record for requiring one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a master’s degree. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶ 20 (requiring a master’s degree), with Ex. 2013 ¶ 31 (testifying why a master’s degree was unnecessary). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree. Patent Owner does not provide an analysis demonstrating that its Infinity product is coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims. Rather, Patent Owner cites to the following testimony of Dr. van der Weide: “I have reviewed the LifeViz Infinity device and conclude that it embodies the invention of the [’]253 Patent. More specifically, the Infinity possesses all the features listed in claim 1 of the patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶ 213). Simply put, Patent Owner fails to provide any analysis whatsoever. Id.; see also 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.”). Moreover, Patent Owner’s reliance on WBIP is misplaced. In that case, “WBIP presented evidence that specific products . . . [we]re embodiments of the invention as claimed in the asserted claims,” and that provided a basis for finding a presumption of nexus. WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1329–31. Such is not the case here. In sum, Patent Owner does not provide the required analysis demonstrating that Infinity is coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims. PO Resp. 55; Lectrosonics, Paper 33 at 33. We, therefore, find that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Ex. 1020, 11:46–57. We agree with Petitioner and find that the combination of Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller teaches this limitation. First, we agree with Petitioner and find that Plassmann teaches a positioning system that uses a pair of light beamers to signal when a target subject is reaching a predefined distance position to the camera. See Ex. 1007, Fig. 1A (light beamers 6a, 6b); Pet. 33. Plassmann teaches that light beams converge at a predefined distance “corresponding to the distance in which the camera lens is focussed.” Ex. 1007, 12:7–13. More specifically, Plassmann states the following: The apparatus is also provided with two low-powered light emitting diodes (LEDs) 6a, 6b, each provided with a focussing lens to produce a beam of light and being arranged so that the beams converge and meet at a point a fixed and desired distance from the apparatus, this distance corresponding to the distance at which the camera lens is focussed. Id.; Pet. 34. Accordingly, we find that Plassmann teaches the limitation, save for having a second predefined distance position—if there are two different distance positions, one necessarily is closer to the camera body and the other one farther. Ex. 1007, 12:7–13, Fig. 1A. Second, we agree with Petitioner and find that Staller teaches a positioning system having more than one predefined imaging distance position. Pet. 38. More specifically, we find that Staller teaches a strobe diffuser attachment for a camera, which includes a “distance measurement device [that] may be adapted to selectively produce one of a plurality of pairs of light beams which intersect at different repeatable distances from the diffuser body.” Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15; see also id. at 5:56– 6:2 (“[T]wo pairs of light beam emitters . . . may be used to provide three or four separate pairs of intersecting bea[m]s and three or four corresponding repeatable distances for diffuser 10.”); Pet. 38. In other words, Staller teaches having at least two distinct predefined distance positions for the camera. Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15, 5:56–6:2. We also agree with Petitioner and find that Staller teaches that its “distance indicator improves the usefulness of close range photography by providing a repeatable scale to photographs[, which] . . . improves the usefulness of close ranges photographs for medical and other organic growth measurement applications.” Ex. 1006, 6:10–15; Pet. 38. In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that Plassmann teaches that “[s]tereoscopic imaging has been known for many years,” and “ha[s] been used to measure the shape of wounds and the like which are otherwise difficult to measure by conventional techniques.” Ex. 1007, 1:6–15; Pet. 35. We also agree with Petitioner and find that it was known in the art before the ’253 patent to use a camera having multiple predefined distances for imaging a subject in connection with wound or lesion treatment. See Ex. 1017,17 579; Ex. 1011,18 164, Fig. 2, Table 2; Ex. 1008,19 481.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 10,165,253 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,165,253
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01511 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller; claims 9–11 are unpatentable as obvious over those references and Peng.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We find this argument unavailing. Rather, we agree with Petitioner and determine that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics are angled but instead means that they each view a subject from different angles. Ex. 1020, 11:43–45; Pet. Reply 7. Specifically, this limitation recites that the two sub-optics are “configured for a simultaneous acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Ex. 1020, 11:43–45. Notably, “according to two different angles” directly follows “two views,” rather than directly following “configured.” Id. And “view” means “[a] scene or an arrangement of subject material for a photograph,” according to a technical dictionary provided by Patent Owner. Ex. 2014,6 210 (defining “view”). In other words, the term “view” itself refers to viewed subject material—a target subject.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not substantively address the differences in their proposed definitions for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 15; PO Resp. 23; see generally Reply; PO Sur-reply. Moreover, the parties agree that which definition we adopt does not substantively impact our analysis of the parties’ arguments concerning unpatentability. Tr. 29:19–30:9, 75:20–25. Because Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’253 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). In addition, we do not find support in the record for requiring one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a master’s degree. Pet. 15; Ex. 2013 ¶ 31 (testifying why a master’s degree was unnecessary). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Otto rely on Treuillet for what the Treuillet reference teaches to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. Treuillet’s suggestions to a person having ordinary skill in the art remain relevant even if Treuillet were factually incorrect in some respects. Second, even if considered hearsay, Dr. Otto properly relied on Treuillet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 4–7. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may rely on facts and data that “need not be admissible,” including hearsay (double or otherwise). Here, the evidence supports that Treuillet was published in an independent, respected, and peer-reviewed IEEE journal. Id. at 5–6 (citing evidence regarding reliability of the IEEE journal). In addition, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments concerning “Reference 45.”5 Mot. Excl. 3–5; Reply Mot. Excl. 1–5. Rather, we find that it is appropriate for an expert also to rely on the sourcing in article published in such an IEEE journal. Thus, Treuillet is the kind of evidence we would expect an expert witness or person having ordinary skill in the art to rely upon, and Dr. Otto was entirely reasonable on relying on Treuillet in forming his opinions Third, even if Treuillet were inconsistent with other evidence, such as Plassmann, this issue would go to the credibility of Dr. Otto’s testimony and the weight given to it in deciding ultimate issues of fact rather than admissibility in the first instance. For the reasons above, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to exclude with respect to Dr. Otto’s testimony.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner persuasively argues that Treuillet teaches that the Plassmann MAVIS II device may take acceptable wound photographs from 65 centimeters to 95 centimeters (within its “depth of field”). Pet. 36; Ex. 1003 ¶ 113; Ex. 1016, 755. A person of skill in the art would have understood that acceptable medical wound photographs would have to be adequately focused and that Treuillet, therefore, suggests a depth of field from 65 centimeters to 95 centimeters for the Plassmann device. Ex. 1003 ¶ 113 (explaining that a person of skill in the art would understand that Plassmann has an expanded depth of field because it can “accurately image a subject at multiple positions”). Petitioner then relies on Staller as teaching multiple light beamers to define more than one imaging position within a depth of field. Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1006, Fig. 4, 2:29–34, 5:56–6:2. Staller teaches plurality of pairs of light beams that “intersect at a different repeatable distance from the diffuser body.” Pet. 23; Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15; see also id. at 5:56– 6:2 (“[T]wo pairs of light beam emitters . . . may be used to provide three or four separate pairs of intersecting bea[m]s and three or four corresponding repeatable distances for diffuser 10.”). In other words, Staller teaches having at least two distinct predefined distance positions for the camera. Ex. 1006, code (57), 2:29–32, 5:13–15, 5:56–6:2. The advantage of the plurality of pairs of light beams is taught by Staller: repeatability. Ex. 1006, 6:10–15 (referring a concern for “repeatable scale” to “improve[] the usefulness of close range photographs for medical” applications). Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to predefine two distances from a device in order to provide for varying levels of magnification. Pet. 45–46. Petitioner persuasively explains that a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references’ teachings. Id. at 46–47.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,070,119 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,070,119
• Scentair Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2014 · IPR2013-00180 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3-5, 9-13, 15, 22-24, 26, 28, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Le Pesant and Privas.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “Dr. Shedd, ScentAir has not carried its burden of proving that Le Pesant would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art selecting a control scheme based on the volume of the space to be treated. Le Pesant’s only discussion of volume is in the context of diffused droplet size. The reference discusses the use of a droplet size that results in a “dry fog,” and states that “[m]eans of diffusing very small droplets in high numbers like this are well suited to the volume of 16 residential rooms and meeting rooms, typically containing air volumes of between 30 and 100 cubic meters.” Ex. 1005, 10:5-10. Contrary to ScentAir’s interpretation, however, this statement does not disclose that the device of Le Pesant may be used in 30-100 cubic meter rooms. Rather, Le Pesant is stating diffusion means which result in a “dry fog” droplet size are suitable for such volumes. Nor does Le Pesant disclose that the programming of its device should be adjusted according to the volume of the room; Le Pesant merely suggests that its device is suitable for various volumes. The reference is silent as to whether adjustments to the programming of the device are necessary for the device to operate in these various volumes.5 Le Pesant, therefore, does not suggest selecting a control scheme based on volume. Nor does Dr. Garris’ testimony that it is “common sense” that concentration of diffused liquid is affected by volume (Ex. 1004 ¶ 22) provide the necessary reason to modify Le Pesant. A known relationship between concentration and volume does not provide a reason to modify the device to take advantage of that relationship, especially when at least one interpretation of Le Pesant suggests that no modification is necessary. ScentAir has not articulated a persuasive reason” slip op. at 16

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

    “Prolitec asks that we construe control schemes as “a set of operational parameters for the appliance.” PO Resp. 6. ScentAir does not proffer a particular construction, but Prolitec notes that, in related district court litigation, ScentAir defined the term as “systematic plan of control.” Id. (citing Ex. 1015, 3). We decline to adopt either construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Prolitec’s construction, “a set of operational parameters for the 8 appliance,” merely repeats language used in the claim immediately following control schemes, and therefore, adds nothing to the understanding of the term. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:27-29 (“each of the control schemes specifying operational parameters for the appliance”). In addition, by focusing on the “operational parameters” aspect of the control scheme, Prolitec’s construction ignores that the control schemes are relationships between inputs and those operational parameters, which may be selected by the user according to some other criteria. This feature was repeatedly emphasized by Prolitec’s counsel at oral argument. Tr. 34 (“adjusting all of these other variables automatically according to that easy to estimate variable . . . in our view that's the whole point of the ’068 control schemes.”). ScentAir’s district court claim construction, by focusing on a “systematic plan of control,” similarly errs by focusing only on the output of the control scheme, and not also on the input. Based on the foregoing, we consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of a plurality of control schemes to be a system of correlations between particular inputs and particular outputs for controlling the diffusion means, which permits a user to select a particular correlation based on user criteria.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “Prolitec argues that this rationale fails to provide a reason to combine the references, contending that Le Pesant does not express a “desire” to treat various volumes and that Privas does not disclose volume-based control. PO Resp. 36. We disagree with the latter argument, as we have already found that Privas discloses selecting a “set point” based—at least in part—on the volume of the space to be treated. With respect to the former argument, we find that Le Pesant discloses treating rooms of varying volumes, at least ranging between 30 and 100 cubic meters. Ex. 1005, 10:8-10. As discussed above, this does not provide a reason to modify Le Pesant to include volume-based control, but we conclude that it provides sufficient reason to combine Le Pesant with Privas, which discusses volume-based control. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to use the liquid diffusion device of Le Pesant in rooms of varying volumes would have reason to incorporate the volume based-control of Privas’ liquid diffusion device.” slip op. at 21

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

    “A prior art reference is considered to be analogous if it is either: 1) from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; or 2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, regardless of the field of endeavor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “A 21 reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id. at 659. The determination of whether a prior art reference is analogous is a factual one. Id. at 658. We find that Privas is analogous art, as it is from the “same field of endeavor” as the ’068 patent. Prolitec argues that Privas is directed to fumigation devices, whereas the ’068 patent is directed to atomizers. PO Resp. 30-31. Prolitec cites the testimony of Dr. Shedd, who notes that the two devices operate under different principles of diffusion. Id. (“In an atomizer like the ’068 patent device, fluid is diffused in a liquid state but in Privas it is diffused in a gaseous state.”) (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 44, 82). ScentAir asserts that Privas is from the same field of endeavor as the ’068 patent, noting that the Privas fumigation device contains both an atomizer and an evaporator. Pet. Reply 10. ScentAir cites Dr. Garris’ testimony that the Privas device is “structurally and functionally akin to the subject matter of the ’068 patent—but with an additional diffusion means.” Id. (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 35). We do not consider the additional evaporator of Privas as somehow removing Privas from the same field of endeavor as the ’068 patent. Both devices are used treat the air within a space using diffusion means that comprise an atomizer. Prolitec has not pointed us to any functional difference that would distinguish the devices in a meaningful way. Tr. 48 (“JUDGE CRUMBLEY: At least some portion of [Privas’] operation is the same as ScentAir’s. MR. BAISH: That’s true, yes.”). Indeed, the devices of Privas and the ’068 patent have 22 significant structural similarities, including the reservoir of liquid and the atomizer/venturi. These structural and functional similarities would have led one of ordinary skill in the art working in the field of atomizing devices, such as those of the ’068 patent, to consider similar devices, such as the fumigator of Privas. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,930,068 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,930,068

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.