- Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,998,854 - Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00984 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable as obvious over Meulen and Chao; claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Meulen does not disclose transforming an image captured by its camera.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field “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,” or alternatively “would have four years of experience working on image or video processing, or digital cameras.” Pet. 6. Petitioner further argues that an “advanced graduate degree” may “make up for the work experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 4–5 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 19–20). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected by the ’413 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“From the outset we note that the words of the claim recite “non- uniformly shift[ing] the pixels” and do not recite a “non-linear” transformation. This favors Petitioner’s position, which is based directly off the definition of “non-uniform,” over Patent Owner’s position, which substitutes “non-linear” for “non-uniform.” Generally, then, we would determine the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term in the context of the entire Specification. Here, however, the ʼ413 patent does not mention “uniform” or “non-uniform” shifting of pixels anywhere except in the claims. The Specification, therefore, provides limited guidance, by itself, as to the ordinary and customary meaning of the term. Nonetheless, even reviewing the portions of the Specification cited by the parties, we see no clear or unambiguous effort to limit the challenged claims to require only non-linear transformations in which the pixels to which a transformation is applied do not have the same amount of shift. is not non-linear. Pet. Reply 1. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the center circle of Figure 2B maintains the original circular shape after the transformation is applied to the image which contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that no two pixels will have the same amount of shift. Pet. Reply 1–2. We agree. In Figure 2B of the ʼ413 patent, the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest. Ex. 1001, 4:19–21. After the input image goes through linear scaling (step 204) and then non-linear warping (step 206) the circles become more vertically compressed as they approach the top and bottom edges and more horizontally stretched as they approach the left and right edges. Id. at 4:22–30. But “the center circle is fully corrected so that it maintains the original circular shape of the corresponding circle in the input image 212.” Id. at 4:23–25. This means that at least some pixels, such as those of the center circle, undergo the same amount of shift after being transformed.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“readable instructions” of claims 1 and 2 must occur in a particular order. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the step of “determine a portion within the input image” must occur after “obtain[ing] an image” and before “apply[ing] a transformation to the input image.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Petitioner argues, on the other hand, that the specification does not require such an order and, in fact, describes an embodiment where such an order is not followed. Pet. 3. We determine that the “determine a portion within the input image” step does not need to occur after the “obtain an image” step and before the “apply a transformation to the input image” step. As Patent Owner itself points out, claims 1 and 2 are apparatus and system claims respectively, and an ordering of the limitations of such claims is not necessary. PO Resp. 17. Even if we were to treat the apparatus and system claims as reciting the steps of a method, “as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We see nothing in the claims that would cause us to break this general rule. Patent Owner argues that the claims imply a “specific order because the ‘determine a portion’ requirement operates on ‘the [obtained] input image’ and defines the ‘portion’ that is necessary for the 23; Ex. 2027 ¶ 59). Although the steps are recited in a specific order in the claim, as they necessarily must be, the claim does not expressly specify that the certain steps must occur before or after other instructions, nor does logic imply such a requirement. For example, if certain characteristics of the image are known before the image is obtained (e.g. the size, dimensions, resolution, aspect ratio, or content etc.) the determination of the portion of the image could be made before the image is obtained. These characteristics may be based on the specific device taking the image or the subject matter of the image, both of which may be known before the image is captured or obtained. It is, therefore, not necessary that the image be obtained in order for a portion of the image to be determined. Similarly, we do not find the written description to expressly or implicitly specify an order the claimed step of “determine a portion of the input image.” For example, the written description of the ʼ413 patent states that in Figure 2B “the center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction as the frame boundary is approached.” Ex. 1001, 4:19–22. Patent Owner emphasizes that this disclosure implies that an input image is obtained before the center portion is chosen. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:63–64, 4:19–22). But the description of this embodiment does not expressly recite an order. For example, the description of Figure 2A explains that “an input image is obtained” in step 202, “the image is then scaled” in step 204, and a “non-linear warping is then applied” in step 206. Ex. 1001, 3:63–4:3. This description does not mention “determin[ing] of a portion of the image” as a separate step or as part of the listed steps, and therefore, does not specify an order in which this step must occur. is configured so that some areas of the image are fully corrected geometrically, while some other areas are distorted. . . . [T]he center of the image is chosen to be the region of interest that is most fully corrected and the distortion increases in each direction.” Id. at 4:17–19. This excerpt from the ʼ413 patent, which the Patent Owner specifically relies on (PO Resp. 19), also does not specify an order in which the determination step (choosing of the region of interest) takes place. Moreover, because the ʼ413 patent states that the warp module is configured so that some areas are fully corrected while others are not, the determination step could take place at the time the warp module was configured, presumably before the image was obtained. Finally, the ʼ413 patent states that “in the case, of video, the area may dynamically change between images (e.g. to follow a moving object).” Ex. 1001, 4:34–36. Patent Owner argues that this description “requires first obtaining the image in order to locate the object that is being followed.” PO Resp. 19–20. This embodiment is related to the case of video or a moving object, which the challenged claims do not mention. We, therefore, decline to limit the scope of the claim based on this embodiment. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and cited evidence we determine Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Meulen and Chao. For example, Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious that when performing image scaling, pixels from the input to output positions are shifted based on a scaling factor.” Pet. 91. Meulen teaches scaling but does not provide the details regarding scaling. E.g., Ex. 1007, 1:55–56, 4:37–49. We agree that in light of Meulen’s disclosure of scaling, a POSITA would have looked to other references, such as Chao, for further details on how to perform scaling. Dr. Katsaggelos provides credible support, testifying that “Meulen mentions ‘compression and/or scaling,’ and provides details on how to perform compression. But Meulen does not disclose the details of how to perform scaling. A POSITA when faced with Meulen and having the knowledge about scaling would have been motivated to turn to a prior art reference that discloses the details of scaling.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 262. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides no motivation to combine other than asserting that it involves combining prior art elements. PO Resp. 35 (quoting Pet. 92). As explained above, however, Petitioner does more than just assert that the motivation involves combining prior art elements. Instead, Petitioner explains that Meulen discusses both compression and scaling, and provides details regarding compression but does not provide details on how to scale. Pet. 91–92; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–262. Thus, Meulen teaches that scaling was a known technique. See Hybritech, (“a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”). Dr. Katsaggelos testifies that, in this situation, a POSITA would have looked to Chao for details regarding scaling. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 262–263. We determine this establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a POSITA would have had reason to combine Meulen’s teachings with Chao. Patent Owner draws a distinction between Meulen and Chao, arguing that “Meulen is concerned with modifying content from a media source to be displayed on a device’s screen while Chao, by contrast, is directed to changing the aspect ratio of a document intended for printing.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 89–90). Patent Owner’s argument is contradicted, however, by Chao’s disclosure which states that “after all the background and foreground elements in the image have been resized . . . [t]he image may be output by displaying the image on or as part of: a display screen such as a computer monitor, camera screen, printer screen, printed page, projected image, or the like.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 32. Patent Owner argues that Meulen’s system avoids distortion near the middle where the user’s focus is more likely to be, while Chao, on the other hand, is directed to avoiding distortion of stylized borders on differently sized pages. PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:26–29; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1, 25; Ex. 2027 ¶¶ 91–92). This argument reads the prior art too narrowly and does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner does not rely on Chao for its teaching of avoiding distortion near the borders of the image, but rather on its teaching of scaling the image while maintaining the design intent of the original image. Ex. 1008 ¶ 22; Ex. 1014 ¶ 67. Thus, Petitioner is applying Chao’s techniques of scaling (regardless of where the area of 92. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Chao’s approach of stretching/shrinking only the background and uniformly scaling entire foreground objects is suitable for graphic design but incompatible with Meulen which is concerned with adapting externally derived media source content for display on a fixed size screen. PO Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 93). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it does not address Petitioner’s combination. Petitioner relies on Chao’s teaching of stretching/shrinking of background elements and applies that stretching/shrinking to Meulen’s images displayed on its screen. Pet. 91–92 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 28, 63; Ex. 1002 ¶ 263). The fact that Chao applies its teaching to graphic design does not prevent a POSITA from applying those teachings to Meulen’s media content displayed on its screen.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 10,015,413 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,015,413 - Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00806 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 15–17, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed paramagnetic flux paths in Wakuda lacked adequate support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) 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 ¶ 33. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 3. 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 ’830 patent specification.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 include means plus function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.8 Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. 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 claims 1, 19, and 20 are means plus function limitations. Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. 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 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Therefore, the specification clearly links the function of “control[ing] supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” at least 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.11 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 to the switch; 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 11 “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, 7:17–20. that limits the structure to that necessary to perform the claimed function. 12 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 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“to include the ability disclosed in Ramsay to allow a user to customize and store parameters associated with haptic effects, such as creating “haptic track files” that specify variations in the amplitude and frequency of the effect over time to achieve a desired effect. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15, 25– 28, 37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 192–193). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated by the desire to expand the functionalities of haptic devices to allow end users to create and customize haptic effects, to provide a fuller haptic experience, and to be able to store haptic effects to save processing power compared to real-time generated effects. Id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 30, 47, 53–57; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–196). Petitioner argues that this making combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both references deal with linear actuators, both disclose storing frequency and amplitude values, and the combination involves routine knowledge of software techniques. Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:3–9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 17, 26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 197–198). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to use the H-bridge switch of Rossi as part of the Gregorio actuator drive circuit 16 in the asserted Gregorio-Ramsay combination to periodically switch the polarity of drive signals to electric coil 28 of Gregorio, and thus oscillate magnet 27, under the control of a signal from processor 12 of Gregorio. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 211). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated because Gregorio does not disclose implementation details and therefore one of ordinary skill would have looked toward teachings like Rossi to fill in those details, and that an H-bridge switch was a well-known example circuit for implementing a change in “current flow direction/polarity” for “push” and “pull” actions in a system, and was a simple, cost-effective, and reliable circuit design. Id. at 56–58 (citing Ex. 1020, Abstr., Figs. 4, 6, 1:65–3:54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 212–217). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques through routine circuit design considerations and software instructions for generating the control signal. Id. at 58 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 218). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to modify the Gregorio-Ramsay-Rossi combination, using the control algorithm disclosed in Aldrich, to replace the monitoring technique of Gregorio with that of Aldrich to maintain a resonance frequency by incrementing or decrementing the drive frequency. Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:22–28, 4:42–48; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 219). Petitioner’s expert provides implementation details of Aldrich, including that the Aldrich hill-climb technique would use a Boolean value to indicate whether the frequency was being increased, with local variables set to default values, and use integer values when processing sensor signals. Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 220–222). Petitioner argues that these modifications would have been motivated to improve the Gregorio system using the Aldrich feedback algorithm for targeting a resonant frequency, given that the Gregorio approach had shortcomings that required a monitoring period with reduced haptic feedback, receiving weak EMF signals. Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 2004, 3:65–5:55, 5:63–65; Ex. 1021, 1–3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 223–227). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques for improvement to yield predictable results, readily implemented via software executed by the microprocessor. Id. at 62–63 (citing Ex. 2004, 2:44–50; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 229). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,941,830 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,941,830 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. 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))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is …
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the Krames declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other claim terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,465,961 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00014 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–14, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 15–20, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” This definition is consistent with the ordinary dictionary definition that Patent Owner advances. Resp. 10; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’976 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” To the contrary, the ’976 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something such as an end point so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, ’976 patent Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:50–55; see also Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’976 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’976 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. The prior art asserted in the Petition appears, on this record, as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’976 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’976 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. King is concerned with delivering small particles to a patient: King states, for example, that an object of its invention is to “deliver to the patient essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist that originates from the nebulizer itself.” Ex. 1006 2:19–22; see also id. at [57] (stating that its apparatus delivers medication “in essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist”); 1:7–10 (stating that invention “delivers a mist of properly sized aerosol particles”); 1:60–65 (stating that invention “functions in a manner to assure that the medicament particles delivered to the patient will be of optimum size”). King states that in “this latest form of the invention this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100 (Fig. 20).” Id. at 6:20– 22. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that design of the passage, through which aerosolized particles pass, will affect the size of output particles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 60; Ex. 1004 ¶ 27 (teaching that, for example, “tight bends” may be use to separate small airborne particles from big particles). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the spiral structure of King’s passage is an example of a “tight bend” (as referenced by Rosener) that can help control what size of particle progresses through the entire passage. Ex. 1006 6:16–22 (explaining that “this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100” and serves to “provid[e] a circuitous fluid flow path through the first chamber”)8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–61. A person of ordinary skill in the art’s use of a spiral structure, as taught by King, to further control particle size via tight bends, as taught by Rosener, would have been obvious because it would have been a “predictable use of a prior art elements according to their established function.” KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Rather than a spiral disrupting Rosener’s separation as Patent Owner argues, the combined teachings of Rosener and King suggest that King’s spiral would assist in achieving separation and particle size control (as Rosener and King teach). Dr. Morse’s testimony is credible in this regard and supports our findings and conclusion along with the references themselves. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–56. Thus, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 2 and 11 of the ’976 patent would have been obvious over Rosener in view of King.” slip op. at 24
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Ultimately, to determine whether Rosener’s suggested tortuous passage is a structure capable performing the functionality of claims 7 and 16, we would need to determine that, because of Rosener’s tortuous passage, liquid would take more time to leak when the device is upended than if the tortuous passage was not present. The record before us, however, does not adequately support such a finding. Here again, the paucity of information provided by Petitioner, who bears the burden of showing unpatentability, tips against a conclusion that these claims are proven unpatentable. Although tight bends and corners might make the flow take longer to leak from the cartridge (as Petitioner urges at Reply 4–6), Petitioner does not establish that this is the case and, moreover, does not establish that it is not the case that the tight bends and corners might make the liquid take less time to leak from the cartridge. As Patent Owner argues, where a channel narrows in a direction of flow, a fluid’s speed may increase in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. Sur-Reply 7–8.10 This principle is evidenced by the Svoboda reference, which explains that gas will travel faster through the “necked down portion 29” of its venturi tube. Ex. 1008, 4:4–8, Fig. 1, 2 (illustrating necked down portion 29). Accordingly, the record is unclear as to whether the tight bends and corners would speed up or slow down the flow of liquid from the cartridge. Additionally, Rosener does not refer to its tortuous passage as preventing leaking, and if the tortuous passage were capable of doing so, it is unclear why the valve would be necessary. See 10 The record also lacks evidence regarding to what extent other factors such as fluid viscosity, pressure differentials, and friction losses could potentially also affect flow speed. This lack of evidence, again, underscores Petitioner’s failure to meet its burden to show unpatentability of these claims. generally Ex. 1004; see also Ex. 2005 ¶ 68 (Dr. Mello’s written testimony on point). In any event, for reasons explained by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s analysis regarding the path and speed of liquid flow when Rosener’s device is upended is insufficient to support the unpatentability of claims 7 and 16 (Sur-Reply 1–18), at least because Petitioner fails to take account of leakage through orifice 401 or because of Rosener’s express need for a valve to provide for a device that “may be inverted without causing the fragrance oil to pour out” (id. at 12). See Ex. 1004 Fig. 2D (illustrating position of orifice 401), ¶ 33 (describing Rosener’s valve); see also Resp. 11–17 (Patent Owner’s arguments); Pet. 29–30, 33; Reply 4–6 (Petitioner’s analysis).” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 9,745,976 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,745,976 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00012 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 6, 8–10, 13–16, 18, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board did not find claims 1–4, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19–21, 23, and 24 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“factual determination that provides a primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or chemical engineering as well as at least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. See Resp. 79 (repeating Petitioner’s definition). The prior art asserted in the Petition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’004 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’004 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” Ex. 2003, 3. That definition is consistent with the dictionary definition advanced by Patent Owner. Resp. 7–11; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’004 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” Id. To the contrary, the ’004 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something, such as an end point, so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, in the ’004 patent, Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:34–36; see Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’004 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’004 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We recognize, in that regard, that a witness “must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art” in order to opine about the level of skill in the art. Kyocera Secco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Dr. Morse has at least the qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan and is qualified to provide opinions as to what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood as of April 22, 2014. Based on Dr. Morse’s statement of qualifications and curriculum vitae, as well as his stated familiarity with the state of the prior art at the time of the invention, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Morse is qualified to provide opinions keyed to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5, 9, 11, App’x pp. 69–73. In any event, to the extent we agree that Petitioner establishes unpatentability as explained above, the prior art references themselves are adequate for Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability even if we were to provide little or no weight to Dr. Morse’s testimony.” slip op. at 61
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“It is not clear, on this record, that guiding surfaces 10 are formed as spirals, as opposed to flat surfaces arranged to “project” and “extend[]” into the atomizing space in a helical pattern. Id.; see Resp. 37–38. Nor is it clear, on this record, how guiding surfaces 10 relate, if at all, to the formation of the transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” described in Knoch, which forms only during normal operation of the device. Id. Knoch indicates that the spiral vortex is formed as a result of the placement and orientation of openings 2 and 3, and that “homogenization” of the aerosolized particles occurs, not via impaction with guiding surfaces 10, but rather, as a result of particles traveling a transient airflow path defined by the spiral vortex. Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 2, 2:48–61, 3:10–4:25, 5:14–38, 5:56–63; see Pet. 31–32 (relying on “homogenization” that occurs when “vaporized liquid” traverses a transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” in Knoch’s device) (quoting Ex. 1006, 3:26–29 5:28–32); see supra 44 n.13. To be clear, Knoch’s spiral vortex is a transient path of airflow that forms only during normal operation of the device, and Petitioner directs us to no persuasive information that Rosener employs any comparable approach “to perform the same functions within the same general structure.” Pet. 24. The lack of analysis provided in the Petition on that key point undermines this challenge. Id. at 23–25, 31–32; Reply 9–10 (totality of Petitioner’s information on that point); see supra 44 n.13. Even if we set aside that problem, however, we find, in the alternative, that Petitioner fails to explain adequately how or why Knoch would have suggested a tortuous passage (as opposed to a transient airflow path) that spirals between the inlet and outlet zone of Rosener’s insert. Without adequate analysis, Petitioner merely refers us to Figure 2E of Rosener, which shows a tortuous passage extending from inlet 401 to outlet zone 240, then directs us to guiding surfaces 10 illustrated in Knoch’s Figure 1. Pet. 31–32. The paucity of analysis provided in the Petition, particularly on the question of where, how, and why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have included a spiraling impaction surface extending from Rosener’s inlet 401 to outlet zone 240 in view of Knoch, persuades us that the proposed modification is driven, not by any suggestion in the prior art, but rather, by an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Id.; see Resp. 27–39 (Patent Owner’s arguments on that point). Petitioner does not establish that Knoch teaches a spiraling” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 9,162,004 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,162,004
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.