• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2025 · IPR2024-01186 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Kwatra does not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as required by the claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have the following characteristics: “a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science, or equivalent field, and two years of experience working on image or video processing or digital cameras.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). Petitioner states that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA would have four years of experience working on image or video processing 6 Patent Owner asserts objective evidence of nonobviousness. Prelim. Resp. 19–27. or digital cameras.” Id. Petitioner further contends “[a]n advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim Resp. 14–15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’894 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe any terms require a formal construction.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner agrees “no claim terms presently require construction to resolve any current dispute between the parties.” PO Resp. 15. We do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 11

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

    “Kwatra teaches, at Equation 7, minimizing velocity and acceleration of a function representing camera path (P). FF ¶¶ 6, 8–9. Kwatra does not state that this camera path function considers rotation. Rather, the words “camera path” suggest x, y, z movement of the camera rather than rotation of the camera. Dr. Foroosh’s testimony that Kwatra’s minimization of a smoothed camera path does not result in minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration is credible because this testimony is consistent with Kwatra as a whole and consistent with the other evidence of record. Id. ¶ 10. Kwatra recognizes that image rotation angle (“θ”) may not remain smooth. Id. ¶ 12. But rather than attempting to minimize velocity and acceleration of rotation of the camera housing, Kwatra states that applying a smoothness constraint on rotation angle “may be non-linear.” Id. ¶ 13. Consistent with Kwatra, Dr. Foroosh credibly explains the difficulty of applying linear techniques to rotation. Id. Thus, Kwatra proposes instead constraining the sine and cosine of theta. Id. ¶ 14. The Kwatra provisional application is part of the Kwatra reference (id. ¶ 15), and it similarly opts for simpler schemes rather than estimating all parameters for all frames jointly. Id. ¶ 16. The provisional explains that the rotational component is relatively small such that non-linear computations minimizing velocity and rotation can be avoided. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. The testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Foroosh, explaining the provisional is credible (Ex. 2018 ¶ 72) because it is consistent with Kwatra’s complete disclosure. Dr. Foroosh’s testimony is more credible than the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Katsaggelos, because Dr. Katsaggelos did not review the Kwatra provisional application and, thus, did not review the entire disclosure of Kwatra. Id. ¶ 19; see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (obviousness analysis considers whether “the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “(id. ¶ 15), and it similarly opts for simpler schemes rather than estimating all parameters for all frames jointly. Id. ¶ 16. The provisional explains that the rotational component is relatively small such that non-linear computations minimizing velocity and rotation can be avoided. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. The testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Foroosh, explaining the provisional is credible (Ex. 2018 ¶ 72) because it is consistent with Kwatra’s complete disclosure. Dr. Foroosh’s testimony is more credible than the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Katsaggelos, because Dr. Katsaggelos did not review the Kwatra provisional application and, thus, did not review the entire disclosure of Kwatra. Id. ¶ 19; see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (obviousness analysis considers whether “the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,574,894 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,574,894
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, IncNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01165 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Zhou does not teach the claimed low-light high-pass or stickiness parameter limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “4. Conclusion for the Prior Art Analysis In sum, we find that Zhou does not disclose the low-light high-pass parameter or the stickiness parameter. Petitioner’s grounds for both independent claims 1 and 16 rely on Zhou for teaching a low-light high-pass parameter or a stickiness parameter. Pet. 23–28, 64. Because we find Zhou does not teach these limitations, all of Petitioner’s grounds fall for this reason. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons given above, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that any claim of the ’840 patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art cited.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in the field of the ’840 patent would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science, or equivalent field, and two years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras. Alternatively, a POSITA would have four years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras. An advanced graduate degree in the disciplines cited above may make up for the work experience indicated above. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). Patent Owner applies the same standard. PO Resp. 26–27. We use this agreed-upon standard for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We review this testimony based on the strength of the underlying factual basis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value . . ..”). Here, the underlying factual basis is not very strong for either witness. That said, we find that Dr. Foroosh’s testimony is more logically sound and consistent with the ’840 patent disclosure. Based on our reading of the specification, we find a clear indication that “stickiness” has to do with the past. In order to control “the extent by which preceding portion(s) . . . impacts determination of the smoothed trajectory” (emphasis added), one must control the degree by which the past frames impact determination. And to control the degree of the past’s influence, one must, as a consequence, favor the past over the future. That is, the frame of reference of the stickiness parameter is the past. The specification could have used a time-agnostic term, like a “nearness” or “adjacency” parameter, but it did not. Thus, the fact that “stickiness” is used in conjunction with “preceding” indicates that it deals with a preference for preceding frames. On this basis, we find Dr. Katsaggelos’s testimony less persuasive than Dr. Foroosh’s.” slip op. at 10

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

    “That said, we do not construe a stickiness parameter as prohibiting consideration of future frames. Instead, we determine that the stickiness parameter’s value determines the impact of the preceding portions, versus the following portions. The ’840 patent recognizes this, when it says that a stickiness parameter value of “1,” representing a “lazy” stabilizer that maximally favors the past, would not override a violation of the margin constraint based on the look-ahead (i.e., would not allow the viewing window to fall out of bounds in the event of large future motion). See Ex. 1001, 22:26–30; see also id. at 12:61–13:29 (acknowledging that favoring the past may lead to a conflict with the viewing window determination), 15:39–60 (adjusting the viewing window to ensure it does not violate a margin constraint). Thus, while a past-favoring parameter by necessity favors the past over the future, it does not prohibit consideration of the future. In view of the above, we construe the claimed “stickiness parameter” as a parameter that controls the extent by which preceding portions of the trajectory impacts determination of the smoothed trajectory, with an understanding that in order to favor preceding portions, to some extent, the parameter must relatively disfavor following portions.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,958,840 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,958,840
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, IncNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01164 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Shi does not disclose the claimed low-light high-pass parameter required by the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Given the teachings of the specification, we agree with Patent Owner that a low-light high-pass parameter is a parameter of a smoothing function that favors high frequencies (high pass) when exposure times are long (low light). See Tr. 42:10–18 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that “high-pass” means “there’s a bias or preference for high frequencies”); Ex. 2020, 93:23– 94:15 (Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Katsaggelos, agreeing that a high-pass system attenuates the low frequency of a signal). Although we acknowledge Petitioner’s position that the specification provides other ways or considerations in implementing a smoothing function, based on our above analysis of the specification, we find that the specification describes the lowlight high-pass parameter as a specific component of a smoothing function. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:17–25 (setting out several parameters besides the low-light high-pass parameter used in trajectory smoothing).” slip op. at 10

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

    “position and a real device position. Id. at 18:27–40. In other words, the blur is addressed by analyzing the image to identify motion and then shifting the image. Shi, however, does not disclose how its parameter is based on low light (or the long exposure times indicative of low light). In its Petition, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “blurs can be caused by low light conditions.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111). Although this is true, that does not mean that Shi’s blurs are identified by a parameter that considers low light. As we just described, Shi identifies the blur by quantifying the amount of motion of the points in an image, not by identifying low light. This is simply a different way to determine the presence of motion blur. In Shi, blur is measured, whereas in the ’840 patent, it is inferred based on low-light conditions (e.g., by observing the exposure time). See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 18:7– 26; Ex. 1001, 19:12–26. In its Reply, Petitioner does not point to any further disclosures. Accordingly, we find that Shi does not disclose the “low-light” aspect of the claimed low-light high-pass parameter. This is sufficient to determine that Petitioner’s ground does not meet all claim limitations. Similarly, we find that Shi does not disclose the “high-pass” aspect of the parameter. Shi’s blur compensation uses a spherical interpolation to modify the image. Ex. 1007, 18:27–40. The low-light high-pass parameter, as we have construed the term, allows more high frequencies. To allow more high frequencies, this necessarily means either allowing fewer low frequencies, or allowing more high frequences as opposed to some counterfactual situation in which fewer high frequencies were going to be allowed. See Ex. 2020, 94:23–95:15; Ex. 2022. We are directed to no persuasive evidence from Petitioner that Shi’s spherical interpolation favors high frequencies over low frequencies. Accord Ex. 2018 ¶ 107 (Patent Owner’s expert stating that Shi’s spherical interpolation “reintroduce[es] both high- and low-frequency motion”). Even if Shi allows the viewing window to track the camera position “consistent with the natural blur in the image” (Ex. 1007, 17:63–67), we are not provided with sufficient evidence to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that providing a similar visual goal as a high-pass parameter (Ex. 1001, 22:16–18, “the output motion may include high frequencies that mask motion blur”) is the same as having a high-pass parameter. Again, merely preserving high frequencies is not the same as having a “high-pass parameter” because, as construed, a “high-pass parameter” also involves some degree of attenuation of low frequencies or relative increase of high frequencies. Accordingly, we find that Shi does not disclose the “high-pass” aspect of the claimed low-light high-pass parameter.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,958,840 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,958,840
• Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00292 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed substantially constant hydraulic-fluid thickness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Westport does not dispute Bosch’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4 (quoting Pet. 23). Based on our review, we see no reason not to adopt Bosch’s undisputed definition of the level of skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the prior art and the specification of the ’829 patent.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Only those claim terms “that are in controversy” need be construed and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, there does not appear to be a dispute over the meaning of any claim terms. And, after reviewing the record, we do not perceive the need to expressly construe any particular claim term in order to determine patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In contrast, the testimony of Bosch’s expert ignores Klügl’s express teachings and is fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of that testimony. While this case may be seen as a battle of the experts over their respective interpretations of Klügl, it is clear that Bosch’s expert loses given his inability to credibly explain his opinions during cross-examination. For instance, despite opining in his declaration that Klügl satisfies claim element 1(e) because “the fluid in chamber 5 is held in place by a membrane 6 and moves through a cylindrical space of constant width and unchanging shape” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 220 (emphasis added)), surprisingly, Bosch’s expert could not, or would not, provide his opinion when asked on cross-examination about the meaning of “flexible” and “membrane” in the context of Klügl’s disclosure— Q. [By Westport’s counsel] What’s your understanding what flexible means in the context of the Klugl reference? . . . A. [By Bosch’s expert] Again, I haven’t been asked to offer a formal opinion of what flexible means in light of this, but if you want to talk about a specific -- excuse me -- part of the document, I’d be happy to. Q. What is a membrane? A. Usually, it’s a thin sheet of material but I haven’t formed a formal opinion on it. Q. What is a flexible membrane? A. Again, I haven’t offered a formal opinion what a flexible membrane is.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Westport. That is because Bosch’s argument that Klügl’s hydraulic fluid maintains substantially constant thickness is premised on the erroneous belief that Klügl’s membrane 6 will not flex. But, as Westport correctly notes, Klügl expressly teaches that membrane 6 is “flexible.” See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”), 7:68–9:31 (repeatedly referencing “first flexible element (6)” and “first flexible membrane (6)”). Consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 flexes to maintain contact with drive piston 3, stating specifically that “in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging, . . . the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3” or “is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7.” Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10 (emphases added). And because Klügl’s membrane 6 flexes when transmission module 2 is unactuated, it follows that membrane 6 will also flex when transmission module 2 is actuated.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,298,829 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,298,829
• Robert Bosch LLC / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00293 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 13, 14, 17–21, and 26–28, 41 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed hydraulic link limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends: A POSITA in the technology field of the ’138 patent would have had a degree in mechanical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience working with the design and development of fuel injection systems for internal combustion engines or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience. (See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 37–39, 41.) This POSITA would be aware of and generally knowledgeable about how fuel injector valves are structured and operate, and how they are used to deliver fuel to an engine’s combustion chambers. (Id., ¶ 40.) Pet. 23. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition. See PO Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Based on the complete record, we do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted, alteration in original)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “mere fact” that Klügl labels the membrane as “flexible.” As discussed, Patent Owner explains Klügl teaches membrane 6 is flexible and that membrane 6 deflects and moves in response to fluid pressure in chamber 5 and contact with piston 3. PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:63–4:10). Additionally, Dr. Atkinson’s testimony is consistent with Klügl’s disclosure. Dr. Atkinson, explains that “[i]n all embodiments shown, Klügl only ever specifies and describes membrane 6 as a “flexible” membrane or element acknowledging that this flexibility is a necessary and desired feature of its intended purpose and behavior.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 80. With this underlying disclosure in mind, Dr. Atkinson further reasons that a flexible membrane will tend to deform longitudinally upward where it contacts the drive piston and bulge outward based on the structure disclosed in Figure 1. See id. ¶¶ 63, 66–67, 77–81, 87. In contrast, Dr. Quinlan’s testimony in many instances, including this one, is substantively incomplete and fraught with contradictions that undermine the weight of his testimony. For example, at his cross- examination deposition, he testified that he had seen and worked with membranes, but could not provide his opinion on the meaning of “flexible” or “membrane” as disclosed in Klügl. See Ex. 2025, 47:14–48:1. Dr. Quinlan was then directed to column 8 in Klügl, where Klügl teaches among other things that “the transmission module (2) has a pressure chamber (5), which is filled with a transmission medium and is delimited by a first flexible membrane (6).” See id. at 65:5–15; Ex. 1006, 8:44–46 (emphasis added). Provided below is the exchange between Patent Owner’s counsel and Dr. Quinlan regarding this express disclosure: slip op. at 37

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

    “Figure 1 of Klügl depicts an injection valve including housing 12 and piezoelectric actuator 1, which is arranged between upper stop 13 and transmission module 2. Ex. 1006, 1:47–51. We observe that transmission module 2 includes pressure chamber 5 that is at least partially filled with hydraulic fluid and is “delimited” by first membrane 6. Id. at 1:60–62, 1:68–2:2. Throttle or connecting bore 10 connects pressure chamber 5 to compensation chamber 7. Id. at 1:62–66. The connecting bore or throttle allows transmission fluid to flow between pressure chamber 5 and compensation chamber 7. Id. at 3:56–4:10. We further note that Klügl expressly teaches first membrane 6 is “flexible.” Ex. 1006, 7:45–47 (“[F]lexible membranes 6, 8, 26 . . . have a progressive characteristic curve of the spring force in relation to the spring deflection.”). Indeed, consistent with this flexibility, Klügl explains that membrane 6 “moves” to maintain contact with drive piston 3. Specifically, Klügl teaches: [i]f the piezoelectric actuator 1 shortens in the rest position without being actuated due to thermal influences or signs of aging in relation to the housing 12, the spring plate 8 pushes the transmission medium from the compensation chamber 7 via the throttle 10 into the pressure chamber 5, so that the first membrane 6 is moved in the direction of the drive piston 3 and, as a result, the drive piston 3 bears against the first membrane 6 despite the shortening of the piezoelectric actuator 1. However, if the distance between the piezoelectric actuator 1 and the drive piston 3 is reduced, the first membrane 6 is pushed in by the drive piston 3 so that the transmission medium is pressed through the throttle 10 into the compensation chamber 7 against the spring force of the spring plate 8. As a result, the drive piston 3 is always in contact with the first membrane 6 in this case as well. Id. at 3:63–4:10 (emphases added).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 6,575,138 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,575,138
• Microsoft Corporation / Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2024 · IPR2023-00529 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 11–16, and 21 were not proven unpatentable over Mauer and Waylett because the asserted combinations did not teach key claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner defines the person of ordinary skill in the art as follows: As of February 2006, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have been a person with a degree in 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the challenged claims of the ’414 patent have an effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 throughout this Decision. 2 Mauer et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,395,085 B1, issued July 1, 2008 (Ex. 1005, “Mauer”). 3 Waylett et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,184,603 B2, issued May 22, 2012 (Ex. 1006, “Waylett”). computer science, electrical or computer engineering, physics, or a similar discipline . . . [and] would also have at least two years of relevant experience including, for example, work related to telecommunications networks. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). The institution decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 11–12. Patent Owner applied this definition for its response. Resp. 19. Petitioner’s undisputed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the prior art and ’414 patent specification. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner does not submit constructions for any claim terms. According to Petitioner, “[t]he Board construes claims under the same standard used in civil actions in federal district court. The district court for the related litigation has not yet construed the claim terms.” Pet. 7. The parties provided briefing regarding construction of “distributed mobile architecture (DMA).” Resp. 19–34; Pet. Reply 1–3; PO Sur-reply 11–14. But we do not need to construe “distributed mobile architecture (DMA)” to resolve this inter partes review. We thus do not construe this claim term. We also do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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)). We discuss the meaning of ’414 patent claims to the extent necessary to resolve the issues we address below. Id.” slip op. at 14

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

    “a) Combination of Mauer and Waylett In support of both Ground 1 and Ground 2, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Mauer’s and Waylett’s disclosures, “using Waylett’s Network-in-a-box 224 in each of Mauer’s WWAN 14 and WLAN 12, resulting in at least two DMA systems.” Pet. 11–13. Asserting that “Mauer teaches providing sufficient network coverage by use of different kinds of networks, network interfaces, and protocols,” Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “Waylett discloses an inexpensive way to implement the same networks used in Mauer’s WWAN 14 and WLAN 12.” Id. Citing similarities in Mauer’s and Waylett’s systems, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been able to modify Mauer’s WWAN 14 and WLAN 12 networks so that each network uses Waylett’s NIB 224.” Id. at 14. According to Petitioner, the combination would have included a number of beneficial features from Mauer. Id. at 14–15. Petitioner further advances three reasons that a person of ordinary skill would have had to combine the references’ teaching. Id. at 15–16. First, asserting that Waylett discloses cost benefits and Mauer discloses “an improved method and system for notifying mobile stations,” Petitioner contends the “references each provide reasoning” to combine their disclosures. Id. at 15. Second, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “improve Mauer’s distributed wireless network system by consolidating it into a single box, making it compact in design allowing for faster deployment.” Id. at 16. “Third, Waylett’s NIB would help mitigate the shared concern of Mauer—that is, reaching a mobile station as it roams or moves outside of the service or coverage area.” Id.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Petitioner does not establish that Mauer sends calls to voicemail based on the two determinations claim 1 recites. Resp. 55–56. In particular, as we explain above, claim 1 requires making use of the DPR after first determining the second mobile subscriber is not located within a first wireless coverage area based on HLR and VLR information and also determining that the second mobile subscriber is not located within a second wireless coverage area based on certain CLR information. The Petition, at best, attempts to establish that Mauer directs to voicemail when a “communication session cannot be established over the first or second wireless network.” Pet. 37. But a general determination that a “communication session cannot be established” does not teach or suggest claim 1’s specific requirements that first, the DPR is utilized in the specific circumstance that the second mobile subscriber is not located within the first wireless coverage area (with this determination being made based on HLR and VLR information), and second, that the DPR is also not located within the second wireless coverage area (with this determination being made based on CLR information). See PO Sur-Reply 8–9; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–113. For the reasons above, Petitioner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the combined art teaches or suggests the final “when” recitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,653,414 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,653,414
• Hanwha Solutions Corporation / Hanwha Q Cells USA, Inc. v. Rec Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00989 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish a motivation to combine Yagiura and Shimasaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. We agree that documents from the Japanese Patent Office are self-authenticating official government documents. The technical issues regarding missing pages in the originally filed version of the document do not cause us to question authenticity. We also agree that Petitioner uses the documents to establish what the documents teach rather than establishing the truth of what the documents teach. In Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the date printed on the document to prove up the truth of when the document was published. Mot. Excl. Reply 1–2. To the extent this is the case, an exception to hearsay applies because the document is a record of a public office. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) (a record of public office is an exception to the hearsay rule if the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances “indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). Here, Patent Owner does not persuasively demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness; Patent Owner does not identify any substantively meaningful distinction in the missing pages of the originally filed document and does not identify any evidence to suggest that the missing pages were anything more than a harmless clerical error. For the reasons above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied with respect to these documents. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s proposal is too broad. PO Resp. 8. For example, a person who merely installs solar panels for three years (satisfying “professional experience in solar energy”) while having some familiarity with module manufacturing would not be of ordinary skill in the design aspects of the ’060 patent as, for example, reflected by the claims at issue and the ’060 patent’s text and figures. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 3:22–7:44. On the other hand, we also determine that Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow. A person could, for example, have ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent by virtue of non-professional experience (for example, academic experience). When assessing relevant experience, research work done for a university (beyond mere classroom study) would have been just as valuable as research work done for a corporation. Also, ordinary skill in the art could be demonstrated by work that requires understanding of the ’060 patent’s field even if not “designing, developing, and/or researching” in the field itself We, thus, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent would have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like, and at least two years of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or (b) experience in solar energy that required an understanding of the ’060 patent’s field. Alternatively, that person would have had an advanced degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like and at least one year of” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “qualifies as evidence in this matter. The Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony about the perspective of person of ordinary skill in the art (as Dr. Kimball provides here) must come from a person having at least ordinary skill in the art. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (holding that ITC Administrative Law Judge abused discretion by admitting expert testimony of witness who lacked the experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art); see Mot. Excl. 6–7 (arguing this point). Patent Owner, however, cites no authority that expert testimony on such matters come from a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Scentair Tech., LLC v. Prolitiec Inc., IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 61 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (similarly noting a party’s lack of authority on this point). Beyond needing to come from a person of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony is admissible if the expert has the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, “[t]here is … no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.” USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019). Here, Petitioner adequately establishes that Dr. Kimball qualifies as a” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Petition argues that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 13. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,060 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,060
• Dril-Quip, Inc. v. FMC Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2022 · PGR2021-00049 · APJ George R Hoskins · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Maersk or Broussard, due to missing claim limitations and insufficient motivation to modify.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Patent Owner contends this person “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or petroleum engineering or similar subject matter, and at least approximately two years of work or research experience in subsea oil and gas completion systems related to the analysis, design, development, and/or manufacturing of equipment for subsea completion systems for use in subsea oil and gas wells.” PO Resp. 16; Ex. 2002 ¶ 11. Thus, the parties essentially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art to be applied in this proceeding. Their agreement is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’921 patent and the prior art of record. Further, we would reach the same decision regardless of whether we adopt Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s formulation. We therefore do not need to delve into any fine distinctions between the two formulations.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “However, Maersk’s other two seal barriers—a ring seal, and a production packer—both appear to be passive barriers. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 60 (annotating Ex. 1019 to identify the ring seal); Ex. 1031 ¶ 33 (stating that passive barriers “include, inter alia . . . packers”). Dr. Hilbert does not explain persuasively why adding a third passive barrier would materially improve the sealing versus Maersk’s three existing barriers, so as to justify the extensive modifications required to re-route the annular fluid through the bore stab. See Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 33–35; id. ¶¶ 13–44 (discussing some of the modifications required). Further, Mr. Parks persuasively testifies, in opposition to Dr. Hilbert’s motivation testimony, that “deeper wells and increased annulus fluid pressure would not have led a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to modify Maersk to provide additional protective barriers.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 58, 60–63 (emphasis added). Some of this testimony has already been cited above. Additionally, Mr. Parks notably served on the editorial committee for API 17D. See id. ¶¶ 6, 63. He testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “recognized that API 17D does not support” Dr. Hilbert’s testimony, “because API 17D’s two-barrier requirement is not dependent on depth or pressure.” Id. ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1022, 158 (§ 9.2.7)) (emphasis added). In particular: “there are practical considerations underlying the API 17D requirement for two barriers, and the lack of any specification for more than two barriers.” Id. ¶ 63. This testimony is supported by API 17D, which requires a minimum of two seal barriers for any system with a rated working pressure falling within the entire 5000–15000 psi range contemplated by API 17D. See Ex. 1022, 158 (§§ 9.2.7–9.2.8). Mr. Parks further testifies: “Two barriers, appropriately specified for” slip op. at 43

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

    “1. “production/annulus bore stab” In the Institution Decision, we determined the preamble of claim 1 (“A production/annulus bore stab”) is a limitation to the claim, which was a disputed issue at the time. See Inst. Dec. 16–20. Neither party has objected to our preliminary determination in their post-institution briefs. See, e.g., PO Resp. 15–16; Pet. Reply; Tr. 8:24–9:13. We, therefore, again conclude here that the preamble of claim 1 is a limitation to the claim, for the reasons provided in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We start our analysis with the claim language. The claim term in dispute is simply a “cylindrical” outer surface. The parties do not cite, and we do not discern, any other contextual claim language that might elucidate or limit the plain and ordinary meaning of “cylindrical.” Petitioner’s gloss on this term as connoting “an overall cylinder-like shape” is an unpersuasive attempt to broaden the meaning of the plain term “cylindrical.” It also would unhelpfully replace our present inquiry (What is a “cylindrical outer surface”?) with yet another inquiry (What is “an overall cylinder-like shape”?). Turning to the ’921 patent specification, we find that it discloses three different and distinct cylindrical outer surfaces: outermost cylindrical surface 102S, first cylindrical outer surface 102X, and second cylindrical outer surface 102Y. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6, 3:47–51, 3:65–4:5. The distinctness of these three surfaces can be seen in Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Petitioner’s attempt to combine these three distinct outer cylindrical surfaces, into one allegedly cylindrical outer surface (see Petitioner’s yellow annotations to Figure 6, supra), is not supported by the ’921 patent specification, which never describes the entire axial extent of the outer surface of bore stab body 102 as being “cylindrical.”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,689,921 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,689,921
• Ocado Group PLC v. Autostore Technology AsNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00311 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the claimed motor control electronics location would have been obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and at least two to three years of experience working in the field of the design of robotic vehicles for material handling systems.” Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1015 ¶ 71). “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 3. In this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We find, on the complete trial record, that this definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the asserted references and the ’140 patent.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In view of the issues in this inter partes review and the parties’ acquiesces to certain constructions, the parties acknowledge there are no claim construction issues. See Tr. 8:25–9:1 (Petitioner contending “[t]here are, I believe, no additional or remaining claim construction issues”), 34:6–8 (Patent Owner asserting “[a]s acknowledged by the Petitioner, there are no claim construction issues which need to be resolved by this Panel”). We similarly determine that no claim term requires an express construction for us to ascertain whether Petitioner has shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “for locating the motor control electronics on the robot and that each choice would have been obvious to try. Ex. 1015 ¶ 122; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 27–32. The Supreme Court set forth the standard for when a combination may be obvious to try: “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (emphasis added). Furthermore, under our rules, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). For the reasons that follow, Dr. Pfeifer’s obvious-to-try testimony is unpersuasive and lacking factual support. Dr. Pfeifer testifies that WO/055 specifically discloses the power components, control components, and drive components should be located in proximity to one another. Ex. 1036 ¶ 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 6:12–14, 20–29, 11:31–34, 12:16–18). Dr. Pfeifer also testifies that, in the in-wheel motor embodiment shown in Figure 17, WO/055 discloses batteries, i.e., power components, located within side walls 262 of lower part 264 of the housing next to the motors. Id. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1003, 14:31–38). According to Dr. Pfeifer, “given WO/055’s teaching that [motor control electronics] should be located near the drive motors and batteries, . . . placing the [motor control electronics] entirely in the volume between the wheels of each rolling set— in close proximity to the in-wheel drive motors and batteries—would have been obvious to try.” Id.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Ex. 1015 ¶ 122 (emphasis added). As we explained in the Decision at institution, however, the location of the battery, i.e., within side walls 262 of lower part 264 of housing 254, does not include the volume between the wheels, as Dr. Pfeifer testifies, because, as shown in Figure 17, wheels 256 are outside of side walls 262. Dec. 26–27. Thus, WO/055’s disclosure of placing the battery within the side walls of the lower part of the housing to reduce the size of the robot and lower the center gravity does not persuasively explain why a POSITA would have placed the motor control electronics within the volume between the wheels.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,474,140 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,474,140
• Ontel Products Corporation v. Guy A. Shaked Investments Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2022 · IPR2021-00052 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because the Board found the obviousness grounds unpersuasive in light of the evidence of industry praise and acceptance.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “a degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and/or a minimum of four years of practical experience in product design, manufacturing, and related materials in the beauty and hair care industry, including with heated appliances.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 24). “[Patent Owner] does not dispute [Petitioner’s] proposed level of skill in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 9. In this Final Written Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We find, on the complete trial record, that this definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the asserted references and the ’562 patent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner asserts that, “for the purposes of this Petition, none of the claim terms require express claim constructions, and they should instead be given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the ’562 prosecution history.” Pet. 11 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Patent Owner agrees the claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, and Patent Owner does not propose any express claim construction. PO Resp. 9. For the reasons forth in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, we determine that no claim term requires an express construction for us to ascertain whether Petitioner has shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Even if we agree with Patent Owner that elongating projections 10 would have the undesirable side effect of decreasing the surface temperature, the drawback of decreased surface temperature does not necessarily disqualify the benefit of better bristle retention as a reason to elongate projections 10, as Petitioner proposes. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that [a] motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). We agree with Petitioner that bristle securement is important to enable the bristles to reliably space the heated surface from a user’s skin. Moreover, given Patent Owner’s reliance on Mr. Prehodka’s testimony that doubling the length of projections 10 would provide only an insubstantial increase in the overall surface area (Sur-reply 12), there is no dispute that lengthening projections 10 would result in an insubstantial decrease in temperature, which is inversely proportional to surface area (PO Resp. 23). As lengthening projections 10 would increase bristle retention, which is important to enable the bristles to provide a space between the heated surface and a user’s skin, and result in only an insubstantial decrease in temperature, we are persuaded a person of ordinary skill in the art would have prioritized the benefit of better bristle retention over the drawback of decreased surface temperature. Furthermore, we disagree with Patent Owner that Lim teaches away from lengthening heating elements that are monolithic with a heating plate. Lim teaches a concern about heating elements breaking with respect to a prior art brush having heating elements embedded in the surface of the roll. Ex. 1005 ¶ 29. Even if lengthening heating elements would make them more likely to break off, Lim’s hair iron includes elongate brushes 112, i.e., heating elements, that are monolithic with iron roll 110, i.e., heating plate. Id. ¶¶ 53–57, Fig. 4. As Lim’s hair iron includes elongate heating elements monolithic with a heating plate despite the concern of the heating elements breaking off, Lim does not discourage lengthening heating elements monolithic with a heating plate.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Furthermore, we disagree with Patent Owner that Lim teaches away from lengthening heating elements that are monolithic with a heating plate. Lim teaches a concern about heating elements breaking with respect to a prior art brush having heating elements embedded in the surface of the roll. Ex. 1005 ¶ 29. Even if lengthening heating elements would make them more likely to break off, Lim’s hair iron includes elongate brushes 112, i.e., heating elements, that are monolithic with iron roll 110, i.e., heating plate. Id. ¶¶ 53–57, Fig. 4. As Lim’s hair iron includes elongate heating elements monolithic with a heating plate despite the concern of the heating elements breaking off, Lim does not discourage lengthening heating elements monolithic with a heating plate. We further disagree with Patent Owner that Ida teaches away from lengthening heating elements that are monolithic with a heating plate. Although Ida may raise a concern about cleaning heating elements that are monolithic with a heating plate (Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 11–13), such a concern about cleaning the heating elements arises from the elements being monolithic with the heating plate, not the length of the heating elements. Thus, Ida’s teaching that cleaning heating elements monolithic with a heating plate is problematic does not discourage lengthening such heating elements. Moreover, Gress’s preferred embodiment lacking a monolithic construction does not teach away from lengthening heating elements that are monolithic with a heating plate. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.”); see also id. at 1201 (holding “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Although Gress’s preferred embodiment does not include a monolithic construction, Gress nonetheless discloses an embodiment with projections 10 being monolithic with cover 8. Ex. 1011, 2:27–32, Figs. 1–3.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,877,562 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,877,562

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.