- Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Shower Enclosures America, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 19, 2018 · IPR2017-00573 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–26 are unpatentable; claims 4, 6, 10, and 15 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 33 and 34 are granted.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“invention. Pet. 26. Patent Owner sets forth many assertions related to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 3–14, 20–30; PO Supp. Resp. 15–20. Petitioner responds to those assertions. Pet. Reply 2–4, 9–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15–16. While we will address each of those assertions, as a substantive matter, Petitioner asserts that “PO does not dispute the definition of a PHOSITA, offer a contrary definition, explain how a different definition might affect the Board’s analysis, nor contest the Board’s specific interpretation of the prior art references to put the PHOSITA determination at issue.” Pet. Reply 16–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15– 16. We agree with that assessment. Moreover, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is often reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, as an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s unopposed substantive assertion with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“1. “track members” Independent claims 1, 12, 19, and 22 each recite “track members.”” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“B. Patentability of Substitute Claims 33 and 34 Petitioner asserts that various claim limitations are disclosed in the” slip op. at 100
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“701, 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Poenariu’s testimony is entirely based on his finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Mr. Poenariu did not articulate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, his entire testimony us unreliable and should be excluded. PO Mot. 5–6. Petitioner responds that Mr. Poenariu discloses more than a sufficient amount of underlying facts on which to base his testimony, and, thus, Patent Owner’s assertions go to weight and not admissibility. Pet. Opp. 6–9. We agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 105
Patent outcomesUS 7,174,944 mixedClaim constructioncites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,174,944 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00724 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 19 and 26 are unpatentable: claim 19 as anticipated by Hite and claim 26 as obvious over Hite and Baji; claims 32–36 and 41 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hite’s system with Hill’s teaching of a high access partition in order to increase storage efficiency and address Hite’s goal of providing “advertisers with less waste and greater cost effectiveness.” Pet. 60; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599 (quoting Ex. 1009, 3:21–35; citing Ex. 1010, 4:54–57). According to Petitioner and Dr. Negus, one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine Hite and Hill— using Hill’s “high access partition allocated for high access data storage” to “store the high access advertisement data of Hite”—to “yield[] the completely predictable and desirable result” of “decrease[d] read and write times of advertisement data stored in Hite’s” storage devices, including optional video storage device 456. Pet. 60, 65; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599; see also Tr. 107:10–15 (asserting the same). Patent Owner argues Dr. Negus’ assertion that advertising data is” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Ex. 1003, 49:55–58. Petitioner refers to Hite’s disclosures that its storage devices “can be . . . disks.” Pet. 27–28 (quoting Ex. 1009, 12:6–11; citing Ex. 1009, 10:44–49). Dr. Negus testifies that “‘disks’ at the alleged time of the invention of the ’494 patent were commonly known as ‘hard disk drives.’” Ex. 1008 ¶ 680 (emphases omitted). Petitioner and Dr. Negus represent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would, therefore, “have understood Hite to disclose the use of an entire ‘disk’ (or ‘hard disk’) as the ‘Video Storage Device’” or the RD. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 680). Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, further contends that “[w]hen the entire ‘hard disk’ storage space is undivided, it is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘partitioned area of a hard disk drive.’” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683. We disagree. Based on Hite’s explanation that “[t]he storage devices used to implement” its system “can be . . . disks” as well as the evidence before us that “disks” or “hard disks” were known as “hard disks drives” at the relevant time, we agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Hite to use an entire disk, hard disk, or hard disk drive for OVS Device 456 and for the RD. Ex. 1009, 10:44–49, 12:6–11; Ex. 1008 ¶ 680; see Ex. 3002 (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2002)), 246 (explaining, within definition of “hard disk,” that a “hard disk” is “[a]lso called: hard disk drive” and defining “hard disk drive” as “See hard disk” (emphases omitted)). We part ways with Petitioner, however, in its proffered conclusion that such an “entire,” “undivided” hard disk or hard disk drive falls within the ordinary meaning of “partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683; see Ex. 3001, 1087 (defining “partition” as “divide into parts”). The claim language expressly requires a “partitioned area of”—not a whole, entire, or undivided—hard disk drive. Thus, we disagree that an entire hard disk or hard disk drive constitutes the “partitioned area of a hard disk drive” required by claim 32. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “wherein said at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive,” as recited in dependent claim 32. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 32 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“e. Conclusion Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is anticipated by Hite. 4. Dependent Claim 26 Claim 26 depends from independent claim 19 and recites, in relevant part, “processing circuitry configured to dynamically merge the particular advertising data with digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device.” Ex. 1003, 49:6–9. The plain claim language unambiguously and expressly requires that it is the “digital media content” that must be “pre-stored.” Yet in addressing the limitation, the Petition represents, and Dr. Negus testifies, that Hite discloses “‘particular advertising data’ that is ‘pre-stored in said at least one storage device’ (prior to the ‘dynamic merging’ with ‘digital media content’),” because commercials targeted for a display site or consumer according to CID codes are stored in the RD or video storage device. Pet. 26 (emphasis added); Ex. 1008 ¶ 646 (emphasis added). These assertions that Hite’s system pre-stores what Petitioner identifies as the “particular advertising data,” targeted commercials selected using CID codes, fail to address or show adequately that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as claim 26 explicitly requires. Thus, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as recited in dependent claim 26. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 26 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proffered rationale for combining Hite with Hill is not adequately supported by the record. Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s assertion that advertising data is “high access” data is a conclusory statement that fails to “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support an obviousness determination. In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d at 1380. Although Hite discusses preempting broadcast commercials with stored commercials at broadcast breaks (see Ex. 1009, 7:24–30), Petitioner does not cite any portion of Hite, or provide any evidence at all, that explains how frequently the advertising data would have been accessed. Accordingly, because Petitioner has not shown adequately that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hite and Hill to arrive at “addressable and reserved storage space for storing the particular advertising data,” as recited in independent claim 19, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is obvious over Hite and Hill.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00717 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 27 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hite or obvious over Hite; claims 16–18 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“preponderance of the evidence that the specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We previously instructed Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 10, 6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”).5 Additionally, the Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There are arguments and evidence advanced by Petitioner to support its positions, though, that Patent Owner chose not to address in either its Preliminary Response (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22), or that was not addressed in the Decision on Institution (Paper 9). We have evaluated those unrebutted arguments and the evidence in support, and we find the Petitioner persuasively established, with sufficient evidence, the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches corresponding elements of the claims. Pet. 18–66 (citing Exs. 1008–1010) (unchallenged portions only). Based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we conclude that the prior art identified by Petitioner describes all limitations of the reviewed claims that were not contested by the Patent Owner in either its Preliminary Response 5 For the reasons noted in our Order (Paper 43, 2–3), however, for this proceeding, we will also consider the arguments set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22). In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (2016). We address only the contested limitations below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“correspond properly to the claimed storage device, because it is not capable of recording programming content selected by a user for later playback. PO Resp. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above, we are persuaded that a proper construction of “storage device” does not require recording programming content for later playback. We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Hite’s OVS Device 456 corresponds properly to the “at least one storage device,” as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 19.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently, and the cited portions of Hite do not disclose, how the method by which the progression is made from “children’s aspirin” to “children’s chewable vitamins.” Dr. Negus’s testimony is similarly unavailing, as the only cited paragraph that plausibly supports their position, paragraph 484, is conclusory and unsupported. Absent such explanation or cited disclosure, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that the recited “key word” is a part of the progression, as required to meet the claim. 8 At least a portion of Dr. Negus’s testimony aligns with this testimony of Dr. Kesan. Ex. 1008 ¶ 669 (“An exemplary targeting characteristic to optimize advertising format scenarios within Hite is the ‘context code’ that ‘could be appended to the commercial’s CID code’ to be ‘compared with program identification codes appended to the program signals’ such that a ‘commercial is displayed if it is in a specific channel or network or show’ as in the example of ‘skiing equipment commercials would be shown during a skiing down hill racing competition’ (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1009 at 4:34–40).”. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 4 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Essentially, Patent Owner assertions are the same as those advanced for the anticipation ground for the same claim. We agree with Patent Owner’s assertions for the same reasons as set forth above. Having said that, the assertions are misplaced, because this is an obviousness ground, and Patent Owner does not address the modification to Hite proposed by the Examiner. To that end, we are persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to code Hite’s viewer responses using keywords, as we agree that such a technique was common and well known at the time of the invention, and that it would have been an obvious design choice. Ex. 1008 ¶ 486. Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges this possibility, as they do not assert that using key words would not have been known, just that it may not have been preferable under certain circumstances. PO Resp. 53 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 92). Insofar as Patent Owner may be asserting that such a preference teaches away from a modification, we have considered it, but determine that it is outweighed by the evidence of the ubiquity of key word searches at the time of the invention. Indeed, we are unclear as to how, other than using numbers or key words, such searches could have been performed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“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. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - Oracle America Inc. / Oracle Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01434 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable because the cited personal notes were not “content contributed.”
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“While the parties use slightly different language, we are unable to discern any substantive differences between the proffered levels of skill and basic qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Dr. Papakonstantinou’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason then for its conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“above-identified single statement in the specification, which uses permissible language such as “can be” and “does not need to be,” is sufficient to justify Patent Owner’s assertions, which for all practical purposes, is a disavowal of claim scope. See Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent a clear disavowal in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.”) We also credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth over that of Dr. Papakonstantinou, because, among other reasons, Dr. Almeroth supports his testimony with relevant citations to the specification, while Dr. Papakonstantinou largely repeats that which is set forth in the Patent Owner Response, without further analysis. graphical fields that allow the input of administrative information without programming” are advantageous over “cumbersome programming performed in the past.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 44, 47. We treat this argument as subsumed within Patent Owner’s argument that the specification disparages prior art systems that require HTML programming to perform administrative tasks.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“224, 232 encompasses a “link to content.” In application, however, “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is actually two separate components: (1) the underlying technical set of computer instructions that, upon clicking the link associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232, transports a user to a web page associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232; and (2) the words “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 itself displayed on the computer display, but separate from the technical set of computer instructions set forth in (1). In this example, (1) is “link to content, but not itself ‘content,’” however, (2) is itself “content.” More precisely, when we now consider “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 in relation to the aforementioned construction of “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” it becomes clear that “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is both “links to content” and “content.” Specifically, component (1) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 232 is “links to content,” but not “content” itself, because the underlying technical set of computer instructions is not “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” but for a computer. By contrast, component (2) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 is “content,” as it is clearly “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” in that the words “what is a wireless LAN?” are intended to convey information to an individual. So, as a practical matter, we discern that every disclosure of a “link to content” that includes “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals” (i.e., any information associated with a “link” that is separate from a generic indication of the “link” itself), is “content.” See also Ex. 3001, 6–16 (providing further analysis concerning construction, which we expressly incorporate herein). Accordingly, we determine that a proper construction of “content” is “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. We are persuaded that “administrative interface” is broader than the “administrative page” mentioned in the specification, in that an “administrative interface” may encompass 9 While discussing “graphical user interface” during oral argument, Patent Owner stated that it was not disclaiming claim scope. Tr. 47:20–22 (“We’re not arguing that the claim terms have been disclaimed in some phrase.”). something other than an “administrative page.” We are also persuaded that the specification’s disclosure of a non-limiting embodiment, that of a highlyautomated and browser-based “administrative page,” does not require that a proper construction of “administrative interface” include “graphical user interface.” As admitted by Patent Owner, these pages are “example[s]” only, and, at best, merely “impl[y]” the presence of a “graphical user interface.” See PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002, 16:39–44; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40). We are persuaded that an “implied example” does not belong in a proper construction of a claim term. Indeed, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s factual premise, concerning the above “implied example,” is flawed, as the specification’s “reference to automation and a browser provides no basis for restricting the claimed ‘administrative interface’ to a graphical user interface.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 15) (Dr. Almeroth testifies that “automation of computer systems does not require a graphical user interface.”). More specifically, Dr. Almeroth identifies other automated “interfaces” in the specification, such as “a networked cash register, bar code scanner or electronic product code reader” (Ex. 1002, 13:8–15, 14:51–52) that do not require a “graphical user interface.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. We agree with Dr. Almeroth’s analysis of the specification. Dr. Almeroth asserts further, and we agree, again, that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would understand that that cash register could be connected to a server that is accessible only via a command line interface, and that administrators could use command-line tools . . . to group content on that server.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. Patent Owner cites In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for its finding of an implicit definition of a” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,516,177 - Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00676 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–9, and 12–15 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 6 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed database limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the ’855 patent is “a person with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of experience working with data acquisition systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). According to Petitioner, “[w]ith more education, such as additional graduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]hroughout this Court’s engagement with the question of obviousness, our cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied its TSM test here.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. In direct contrast, Patent Owner’s assertions of law, by use of the terms “unnecessary” and “unneeded,” harkens back to the rigid TSM test, which the Supreme Court held explicitly as being incorrect. The Supreme Court further opined as follows: Neither the enactment of § 103 nor the analysis in [Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)] disturbed this Court’s earlier instructions concerning the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art. For over a half century, the Court has held that a “patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 415–416. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions of law, there is no use of terms similar to “unnecessary,” “unneeded,” or even “goals” in the obviousness analysis. Instead, the Supreme Court’s inquiry is straightforward: (1) if the elements are found in the prior art, and (2) if the combination results in “no change in respective function” and “does no more than yield predictable results,” i.e., a predictable reason to combine for a predictable advantage, then the resulting combination is “likely to be obvious.” Id.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts further that “Mahajan teaches such a person of skill in the art not to include a memory, as its real-time data transmission system is described as preferable to a memory-based system such as Lee’s.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. While Mahajan does disclose such a general preference in one embodiment, we find that it, at the same time, expressly acknowledges the possibility of the alternative. Ex. 1005 ¶ 42 (“The hardware device need not have an on-board memory for storing the orientation and position information.”). See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (non-preferred embodiments can be the basis for an obviousness analysis). Specifically, we find that the words “need not” actually conveys the following meaning in the context of the Mahajan: “may, but need not.” This understanding is further underscored by the fact that Mahajan expressly incorporates-by-reference Lee, and, in describing Lee, asserts the following: “A distinctive feature of this instrumented golf club is the use of a data storage memory device located within the golf club that eliminates the need for radio transmission hardware.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Indeed, not only does Mahajan acknowledge that an alternative of adding memory was known, it even identifies an advantage for that alternative. The argument that such an advantage may be allegedly contrary to the goals of Mahajan is unpersuasive, for the reasons set forth above. Finally, insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Mahajan teaches away from the proffered modification, we disagree for the same reasons. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (a reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We determine that Petitioner’s evidence and argument is insufficient to demonstrate that Mahajan teaches the limitation of claim 5. As an initial matter, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan’s teaching of storing information informs a skilled artisan that that storage is a “database,” as required by claim 5. See Pet. 32–33; Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner does not adequately explain why a storage medium, such a hard drive or a server, sufficiently equates with a “database.” Indeed, in response to the question— “[s]o Mahajan's disclosure of a remote server is not the same thing as disclosing a remote database, correct?”—Dr. Nesbitt testified, “[n]ot exclusively.” Ex. 2011, 123:8–12; see id. at 120:19–21. Dr. Nesbitt further testified that, [a] server would be more of a hardware device, where a database would be more of a software. It would be a place where the data is actually stored within a remote computer or remote server. So it’s the hardware versus what’s in the hardware is the distinction between the two. Id. at 122:17–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert opining that “[d]isclosure of sending data to remote server for storage, without more, is insufficient to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the server contains a database.”). The ’855 patent also distinguishes between a “remote database” and a “remote server.” See Ex. 1001, 8:33–34 57 (“[t]he data uploaded to the Internet, i.e., a remote database or remote server or memory remote to the system”); id. at 26:48–51. At oral argument,” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,855 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,855 - Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00264 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–30 are unpatentable as obvious over the Dietzen-led combination; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable because Toth did not establish the ISO-container limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“1. “adapted to” This term appears in claims 11 and 18–20. Petitioner proposes “adapted to” means “capable of.” Pet. 9. We agree, insofar as these limitations require structure to have qualities or features allowing it to meet the claim language. For example, claim 18 would require a vessel that actually can “withstand a pressure of about 4 bar to about 8 bar.” In other words, the “adapted to” language distinguishes from those structures that are not physically capable of meeting the limitation. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. 17–19. Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments, however, is not clear to us what Patent Owner disputes to be the effective difference. We determine that no explicit construction of “adapted to” is necessary.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner that Petitioner’s initial construction, now abandoned, was too broad. Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved. However, the aspect of Patent Owner’s proposed construction that would require a gravity test is not supported by the ’217 patent. Instead, we adopt a construction that is essentially a combination of Petitioner’s new claim construction (see Pet. Reply 10) and Patent Owner’s claim construction, for the reasons below. The ’217 patent does not describe drill cuttings or paste with any reference to flow in relation to gravity. The ’217 patent describes the material conveyed therein in several different ways, but it is always referring to the same material. The labels that the ’217 patent gives to this material are: “thick heavy paste” (Ex. 1001, 1:6, 22–23, 28, 32, 42–43, 2:43), “drill cuttings” (id. at 1:28, 43; see also id. at 1:21 (simply, “cuttings”)), “non-free flowing paste” (id. at 1:38, 42), and “thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material” (id. at 1:42–43). These labels are often equated to one another in the ’217 patent: “cuttings . . . in the form of a very thick heavy paste[]” (id. at 1:21–23), “thick heavy pastes . . . e.g. drill cuttings” (id. at 1:28), “non- free flowing paste[] . . . e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 1:42–43). As such, the ’217 patent considers drill cuttings to be a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste. Thus, using the terms from the ’217 patent, drill cuttings are a non-free flowing paste. We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which involves adding some sort of gravity test to the material to determine whether or not it is a non-free flowing paste. According to ’217 patent, the non-free flowing paste is drill cutting material, which in turn is a screened material generated by the drilling of an oil well. Ex. 1001, 1:19–23,15 28, 42–43. The ’217 patent, therefore, defines the relevant “paste” material, e.g., drill cuttings, by the way in which it arrives at the pressure vessel (screening), consistent with our construction in IPR2016-00256, and not by any particular gravity test. See Ex. 2055 ¶ 10 (Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Lauder, testifying that “[t]he material coming out of the shaker house is referred to as drill cuttings and often has the consistency of a thick, heavy paste, or as claimed in the ‘217 patent, non-free flowing, heterogeneous, multicomponent, earth extracted paste”). Thus, we are not persuaded that the claim requires a gravity test, as none is mentioned or alluded to in the specification, and is not needed given the way that the relevant material is described in the specification.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although both parties agree that the level of ordinary skill involves a bachelor’s degree and familiarity with similar subject matter, Petitioner proposes experience in the design of systems, whereas Patent Owner merely proposes experience with the systems themselves. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art designs devices, rather than is merely familiar with them (e.g., an operator or a manufacturer), as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1031 ¶ 28; Ex. 1002, 2:25–27 (indicating that those skilled in the art would understand “that the critical cone angle will vary depending upon the material being conveyed”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill; though we note this difference would not affect our analysis.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Carson, taken out of context, and also on the unsupported testimony of its expert, Dr. Brown. PO Resp. 12–15. As to the testimony of Dr. Carson, Patent Owner points out that one of Dr. Carson’s colleagues once used the term “free-flowing” in a paper. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1016). During cross examination relating to this paper (which was on powders, not pastes), Dr. Carson agreed that “it is possible” “to define non-free flowing in terms of gravity.” Ex. 2021, 88:17–21.16 Even if it is possible to define “non-free flowing” in terms of gravity in some context, that does not mean it is possible to define it in all contexts, let alone this particular context.17 Or, if possible, that such a definition is reasonable. Thus, we do not find the testimony of Dr. Carson to support Patent Owner’s requirement for a gravity test. As to Dr. Brown, Patent Owner relies on his testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that these pastes would not generally flow as a result of gravity.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2060 ¶ 83). Dr. Brown’s cited testimony is as follows: 16 Notably, Dr. Carson does not testify with respect to pastes, drill cuttings, or anything related to the claimed material at hand. Patent Owner distinguishes pastes and drill cuttings from powders when arguing that the prior art powder-conveying pressure vessels could not be expected to convey pastes or drill cuttings. See, e.g., PO Resp. 27 (arguing that “granular solids are distinct from the non-free flowing . . . paste . . . of the claims”). 17 Exhibit 1016 is directed to the flowability of powder, not pastes, and states that “the term free flowing, so commonly used, becomes meaningless unless the specific equipment handling the material is specified.” Ex. 1016, 62. To the extent this teaching applies to pastes, what it shows is that what is “free flowing” on one piece of equipment may not be so on another, and supports Petitioner’s argument that adding a gravity test would render the term indefinite. Pet. Reply 12. The ’217 Patent goes further to establish that “thick heavy paste material[s]” are different from “relatively free flowing material” or “small batches of wet sticky materials.” Ex. 1002 at 1:35-36. Because the material conveyed in the ’217 Patent is contrasted with “relatively free flowing material,” the ’217 Patent’s use of the term “non-free flowing” is consistent with what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to mean, and that is “does not generally flow freely by gravitational force.” Ex. 2060 ¶ 83. Dr. Brown’s testimony does not provide any credible evidence in support of his conclusion that the ’217 patent’s contrast between “thick heavy paste” and “free flowing material” has something to do with gravity. Similarly, his testimony that “‘non-free flowing’ is used to describe a material that ‘does not generally flow freely by gravitational force’” lacks supporting evidence or explanation. Id. ¶ 80; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We do not find his testimony persuasive.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 6,709,217 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,709,217 - Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00263 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–49 are unpatentable as obvious over the Dietzen-led grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “adapted to” This term appears in claims 11, 17–19, and 30–49. Petitioner proposes “adapted to” means “capable of.” Pet. ’262, 10; Pet. ’263, 10. We agree, insofar as these limitations require structure to have qualities or features allowing it to meet the claim language. For example, claim 17 would require a vessel that actually can “withstand a pressure of about 4 bar to about 8 bar.” In other words, the “adapted to” language distinguishes from those structures that are not physically capable of meeting the limitation. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. ’262, 17–19; PO Resp. ’263, 16–19. Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments, however, is not clear to us what Patent Owner disputes to be the effective difference. We determine that no explicit construction of “adapted to” is necessary.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s initial construction, now abandoned, was too broad. Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved. However, Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which would require a gravity test, is not supported by the ’062 patent. Instead, we effectively adopt a combination of Patent Owner’s proposed construction and Petitioner’s, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“3. “means for transporting” This term appears in claims 39, 40, 46, and 47. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transporting [the] pressure vessel to a discharge station” and corresponding structure of “a ship, crane, and road vehicle.” Pet. ’263, 12 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction. PO Resp. ’263, 20 (using the term “boat” instead of “ship”). The constructions are effectively identical. Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. 4. “means for transferring” This term appears in claims 44 and 45. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transferring the nonfree flowing drill cuttings from a second vessel to a third vessel” and corresponding structure of “a conduit, pipe, or flexible hose.” Pet. ’263, 12– 13 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction, but with more exemplary corresponding structures. PO Resp. ’263, 21 (also including “compressed gas[/air],” “a connector,” and “a hose”). Petitioner’s Reply does not discuss the construction of “means for transferring.” Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is a slightly broader reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“The original claims of the ’217 patent were rejected as anticipated by Curtis, which had pulsed-jet aerators in the cone of the pressure vessel. Ex. 2017, 232, 3:7–11, 6:59–64. After a telephone interview, during which the Examiner and Patent Owner “[d]iscussed [a] proposed amendment” (id. at 284), the Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment adding that the conveyance gas was “the sole means for inducing movement [of the material]” (see, e.g., id. at 322). The Examiner set forth the scope of the “sole means” limitation: “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” Id. Amending the claims to include the “sole means” limitation, along with the Examiner’s accompanying explanation of its scope, are clearly and unmistakably the reasons for issuance of the ’217 patent. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prosecution history “provides evidence of how the [PTO] and the inventor understood the patent” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (alteration in original)).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,186,062 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,186,062 - Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00262 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–49 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 11 is not unpatentable because the obviousness grounds did not establish its ISO-frame limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “adapted to” This term appears in claims 11, 17–19, and 30–49. Petitioner proposes “adapted to” means “capable of.” Pet. ’262, 10; Pet. ’263, 10. We agree, insofar as these limitations require structure to have qualities or features allowing it to meet the claim language. For example, claim 17 would require a vessel that actually can “withstand a pressure of about 4 bar to about 8 bar.” In other words, the “adapted to” language distinguishes from those structures that are not physically capable of meeting the limitation. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is overly broad. PO Resp. ’262, 17–19; PO Resp. ’263, 16–19. Reviewing Patent Owner’s arguments, however, is not clear to us what Patent Owner disputes to be the effective difference. We determine that no explicit construction of “adapted to” is necessary.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s initial construction, now abandoned, was too broad. Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved. However, Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which would require a gravity test, is not supported by the ’062 patent. Instead, we effectively adopt a combination of Patent Owner’s proposed construction and Petitioner’s, for the reasons explained below. The ’062 patent describes the material conveyed therein in several different ways, but it is always referring to the same material. The labels that the ’062 patent gives to this material are: “thick heavy paste” (Ex. 1004, 1:29, 1:46–47, 1:64, 2:1, 3:11), “drill cuttings” (id. at 1:65, 2:12; see also id. at 1:45 (simply, “cuttings”)), “non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:7–8, 11), and “thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material” (id. at 2:11–12). These labels are often equated to one another: “cuttings . . . in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:45–47), “thick heavy paste . . . e.g. drill cuttings” (id. at 1:64–65), “non-free flowing paste . . . e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:11–12). As such, the ’062 patent considers screened drill cuttings to be a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. The ’062 patent does not discuss “non-free flowing drill cuttings,” or relate it to gravity. However, given that the ’062 patent considers “drill cuttings” to be “non-free flowing paste,” the “drill cuttings” are already “non-free flowing” according to the ’062 patent. Thus, when the claims add “non-free flowing” to “drill cuttings,” we find that they do not provide a further limitation, but rather just provide an extra description that a person of ordinary skill in the art would already understand is present if they were to read the specification. The ’062 patent is simply providing many ways to describe the same thing. There is no persuasive evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “non-free flowing” to otherwise be a term of art. Indeed, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Brown, points to the exact same physical material samples to provide examples of “drill cuttings,” “non-free flowing paste,” and “non-free flowing drill cuttings.” Compare Ex. 2014 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2056 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2059 ¶ 53 with Ex. 2060 ¶ 53 (each using the same picture to describe the material).18” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other
“3. “means for transporting” This term appears in claims 39, 40, 46, and 47. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transporting [the] pressure vessel to a discharge station” and corresponding structure of “a ship, crane, and road vehicle.” Pet. ’263, 12 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction. PO Resp. ’263, 20 (using the term “boat” instead of “ship”). The constructions are effectively identical. Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt the Patent Owner’s proposed construction. 4. “means for transferring” This term appears in claims 44 and 45. Petitioner proposes the term is a means-plus-function limitation having a function of “transferring the nonfree flowing drill cuttings from a second vessel to a third vessel” and corresponding structure of “a conduit, pipe, or flexible hose.” Pet. ’263, 12– 13 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 5:8–11, 5:59–63, 6:17–31). Patent Owner proposes a similar construction, but with more exemplary corresponding structures. PO Resp. ’263, 21 (also including “compressed gas[/air],” “a connector,” and “a hose”). Petitioner’s Reply does not discuss the construction of “means for transferring.” Our Decision does not turn on which proposed construction we choose; we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is a slightly broader reasonable interpretation.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“The original claims of the ’217 patent were rejected as anticipated by Curtis, which had pulsed-jet aerators in the cone of the pressure vessel. Ex. 2017, 232, 3:7–11, 6:59–64. After a telephone interview, during which the Examiner and Patent Owner “[d]iscussed [a] proposed amendment” (id. at 284), the Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment adding that the conveyance gas was “the sole means for inducing movement [of the material]” (see, e.g., id. at 322). The Examiner set forth the scope of the “sole means” limitation: “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” Id. Amending the claims to include the “sole means” limitation, along with the Examiner’s accompanying explanation of its scope, are clearly and unmistakably the reasons for issuance of the ’217 patent. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prosecution history “provides evidence of how the [PTO] and the inventor understood the patent” (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (alteration in original)). The application that was issued as the ’062 patent is a direct continuation of the application that issued as the ’217 patent. The claims in the ’062 patent application did not have the “sole means” limitation required by the Examiner for allowance of the ’217 patent. Instead, the claims included the “without employing non-pneumatic means” limitation. The ’062 patent application received an obviousness-type double patenting rejection in the first Office Action, where the Examiner stated “[a]lthough the [claims in the ’217 patent and the present application] are not identical, they are not patently distinct from each other because the instant apparatus claim(s) are too close in scope with the patented method claim(s).” Ex. 2019, 629. Patent Owner did not traverse that rejection and filed a terminal disclaimer; the claims were thereafter allowed. Our understanding of the prosecution history of the ’062 patent is that the Examiner did not consider the “without employing” limitation to be meaningfully broader than the “sole means” limitation, or the Examiner would have re-instated the Curtis rejection. Instead, the Examiner stated the claims were “not patently distinct.” Ex. 2019, 629. In other words, the Examiner considered the claims in the ’062 patent to also have “precluded” “heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent.” Ex. 2017, 322. Patent Owner acquiesced to the Examiner’s statement that the claims are not patentably distinct by not traversing the double patenting rejection and filing a terminal disclaimer to secure allowance of the claims. Ex. 2019, 651 (“please find enclosed a TERMINAL DISCLAIMER in response to the double patenting rejection”). See Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1097 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (disclaimer arose where the applicants “let[ ] stand an examiner’s narrow characterization of a claim term” and “adopt[ed] ... that characterization to overcome the examiner’s ... rejection”); TorPharm Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“Whether the patentee chooses to dispute the examiner’s view of matters is relevant to claim interpretation, for there a court may need to ascertain exactly what subject matter was actually examined and allowed by the PTO.”). Thus, the prosecution history of the ’062 patent simply continues the prosecution history of the ’217 patent, and leaves intact the Examiner’s and Patent Owner’s understanding regarding the scope of the amendment responsible for allowance. Accordingly, we construe the “without employing” limitation the same as the “sole means” limitation of the ’217 patent: heat addition, aerating action (i.e. chopping up of material, applying a screw conveyor, etc.), or the addition of a fluidizing agent are precluded. The conveyance gas is not a fluidizing agent.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,186,062 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,186,062 - Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00259 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, Pneumatic Conveying, and Toth; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art is unreasonably high, and we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of our Final Written Decision. While Petitioner’s definition requires five years of design experience at the bachelor’s degree level of education, Patent Owner’s definition does not require any design experience at all. We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art designs devices, and, thus, actively monitors the relevant technical literature, rather than is merely familiar with devices (e.g., an operator or a manufacturer), as proposed by Patent Owner. See Ex. 1034 ¶ 28; Ex. 1005, 2:62–64 (indicating that those skilled in the art would understand “that the critical cone angle will vary depending upon the material being conveyed”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposal to construe “non-free flowing drill cuttings” as drill cuttings that do not generally flow freely by gravitational force. There is insufficient support in the Specification for that proposal. The Specification does not distinguish between different types of screened drill cuttings, for example, screened drill cuttings that generally flow freely by gravitational force and those that do not. While the Specification describes screened drill cuttings in various ways, it is always referring to the same material. For example, the Specification refers explicitly to “thick, heavy pastes which are normally difficult to move and 12 See Ex 1005, 1:37–39 (calling drilling fluid a special type of oil used as a lubricant.) handle” (Ex. 1005, 1:31–32), “[screened] cuttings . . . transported ashore in the form of a very thick heavy paste” (id. at 1:44–48), “thick heavy paste material (e.g., drill cuttings)” (id. at 1:66–67), “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 2:3), “a non-free flowing paste” (id. at 2:9–10), “[t]he non-free flowing paste may be a thick and/or heavy paste or clay like material, e.g. oil rig drill cuttings” (id. at 2:13–14), and “a thick heavy paste” (id. at 3:10–11). As such, the Specification characterizes screened drill cuttings as a thick heavy paste as well as a non-free flowing paste and, thus, considers a thick heavy paste to be a non-free flowing paste. We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of “non-free flowing drill cuttings” is “screened drill cuttings, i.e., screened material, generated by the drilling of an oil well, including a mixture of earth and drilling fluid or oil.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments do not respond adequately to Petitioner’s persuasive obviousness rationale that a POSITA would have substituted a positive-pressure conveyance system in place of the negative-pressure conveyance system of Dietzen I and II because negative pressure systems are generally limited to shorter distances and lower material volumes than positive systems. Further, Patent Owner’s arguments do not address sufficiently Ciaffone’s teaching that a positive-pressure vessel with a conical bottom section can be used to convey materials without the need for bins, hoppers, hydraulic rams, screw feeders, conveyor belts, and the like. See Ex. 1006, 1:70–2:6. As explained by Petitioner, Dietzen II uses an auger to augment use of negative pressure for moving settled materials horizontally from the bottom of a vessel. Pet. Reply 15; Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 154:6–155:5. In contrast with Dietzen II’s relatively low-pressure vacuum system, a positive- pressure system such as taught by Ciaffone, with an operating pressure of up to 6.89 bar, blows materials out of the conical bottom section of the vessel. See supra Section II.C.1.b. Patent Owner further argues that a “POSITA would have discounted positive pressure given th[at] non-free flowing drill cuttings cannot be fragmented.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2057 ¶¶ 44, 150). We find this argument unpersuasive because Ciaffone’s blow vessel does not require fragmentation of the material to be conveyed. Rather, Ciaffone teaches compaction of the material in a tightly knit unit that can be acted upon by the full force of the pressurized air, in contrast with dispersion of the waste such that air is diffused among the separated particles resulting in diminution in the applied air pressure conveying the total charge. Ex. 1006, 3:11–19. Further, Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “small capacity blow vessels are designed on the basis of conveying material as a series of discrete plugs rather than as a continuous stream.” Ex. 1009, 282, Fig. 7.32. Pneumatic Conveying further explains: “As such, the capacity of the vessel is selected such that on discharge a plug is formed which is just long enough to prevent blocking [of the conveying line].” Id. Pneumatic Conveying discloses that “[i]f the material to be conveyed is unusually cohesive, a plug forming system will yield good results” and, “[a]s the plugs are relatively impermeable, they remain separated even over long conveying distances.” Id. at 346. Based on these teachings, a POSITA would not have understood that it was necessary to fragment non-free flowing drill cuttings, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument. For the reasons given, Petitioner has provided a sufficient reason with rational underpinning for combining Dietzen I and II, Ciaffone, Laster, and Pneumatic Conveying. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Pneumatic Conveying does not provide information on “anything close to ‘non-free flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings’ or a ‘thick, heavy paste,’” and, thus, a POSITA “would not look to designs presented in Pneumatic Conveying.” Ex. 2057 ¶ 185. We give little weight to this testimony because, as discussed above, we credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying identifies hundreds of materials, including paste and cohesive material. See supra Section II.C.1.e(2). We also credit Dr. Carson’s testimony that Pneumatic Conveying explains that pressure vessels increasingly were being used to convey materials with “bad” flow properties, and that “Pneumatic Conveying would have also shown those of ordinary skill in the art that pneumatic conveying with a positive pressure system would be an effective way to transport non-free flowing drill cuttings, including in the form of a paste or sludge.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 124. Dr. Brown also testifies that the information in Pneumatic Conveying with respect to mass flow concerns granular solids. Ex. 2057 ¶ 185 (citing Ex. 1009, 411). He further testifies that because “the flow behavior of nonfree flowing [oil well drill/drill] cuttings is distinct from that of granular solids . . . a person of ordinary skill in the art would gain no insight in designing a vessel for paste to produce mass flow from a vessel designed to contain granular solids.” Id. We give little weight to this testimony because Dr. Brown does not address all of the information in Pneumatic Conveying that is relevant to mass flow, as discussed further below. In contrast with Dr. Brown, Dr. Carson testifies: “As explained in Pneumatic Conveying, those of ordinary skill in the art knew that the cone angle is an important variable to adjust in order to achieve mass flow.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1009, 280–282, 410–420; Ex. 1046, 68–74, 147– 151). Consistent with Dr. Carson’s testimony, the ’018 Patent discloses that “[i]t is well known that the critical cone angle [to achieve mass flow] will vary depending upon the material being conveyed [and] as such would be well understood by those skilled in the art.” Ex. 1005, 2:61–63. We credit the testimony of Dr. Carson over the conflicting testimony of Dr. Brown because Dr. Carson’s testimony addresses the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is consistent with that disclosure, while Dr. Brown’s testimony does not address the full Pneumatic Conveying disclosure, and is not completely consistent with that disclosure. For example, under the subheading “Factors influencing blow vessel performance,” Pneumatic Conveying teaches that “[t]he increased use of blow vessels for feeding materials with ‘bad’ flow properties necessitates the selection of a suitable cone angle.” Ex. 1009, 279. Pneumatic Conveying further explains that “[v]essels with incorrectly designed cone angles will result in either ‘ratholing’ or ‘bridging’ problems.” Id. at 279, Fig. 7.30. These teachings of Pneumatic Conveying are not limited to granular solids, contrary to Dr. Brown’s testimony.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,544,018 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,544,018 - Repro-Med Systems, Inc. v. Emed Technologies CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01920 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 10 are unpatentable on the stated anticipation and obviousness grounds; claim 9 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent, such as the ’476 patent, are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016) (concluding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) “represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 5 The Decision on Institution considered 27 separate grounds. See Dec. on Inst. 6–8. understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, we are careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” (citation omitted)). 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art RMS’s expert, Dr. Kazmer, contends that the level of ordinary skill of the ’476 patent is “a degreed Chemical, Mechanical, or Plastics engineer with three years of experience directly related to plastics product design and injection molding” or, alternatively, “a non-degreed practitioner with ten years of experience directly related to plastics product design and injection molding.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 21. EMED counters that the level of ordinary skill is “a degreed BioMedical, Chemical, Mechanical, or Plastics engineer with 3-5 years [of] experience designing medical products including medical products with a sharps protection device or alternatively a professional with 5-7 years [of] experience designing medical products, including medical products with a sharps protection device.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 22).6 At oral argument, EMED clarified that the “experience designing medical products 6 In his Declaration supporting EMED’s Motion to Amend, Mr. Stoker provides a different level of ordinary skill in the art— “a degreed BioMedical, Chemical, Mechanical, or Plastics engineer with five years of experience directly related to needle product design, particularly concentrating on the safety aspects of needle design” or, alternatively, “a non-degreed practitioner with ten years of experience directly related to the safety aspects of needle design.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 44. including medical products with a sharps protection device” merely required some of the experience in product design must concern sharps. See Tr. 36:13–6 (“[O]ne of skill in the art necessarily wouldn’t need three to five years specifically working in sharps technology, but they would have to have at least some experience.”).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“support its contention that an artisan of ordinary skill would understand the claim limitation “the wings in the open position are spaced apart from each other to expose the medical needle to allow placement of the medical needle into a treatment site and delivery of a medicinal fluid” to require the wings to be folded back to permit inserting the needle. See PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2003, Decl. of Ron Stoker, ¶ 78). Mr. Stoker merely provides the same statement as that appearing in the Patent Owner Response—“[o]ne of skill in the art would understand permitting placement to mean that the wings could be folded back to permit insertion of the needle”—without providing any basis for his opinion. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 78. Accordingly, we give little weight to this testimony. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“for the term “and are configured for”—“a pair of wings being selectively positionable from a first position to a second position, the first position for placing the medical [ ] needle into a patient and delivering a medicinal fluid to a second position.” PO Reply 9–10 (citing its Motion to Amend at 11– 14). The Motion to Amend, however, refers to the disclosure that serves as the basis for this “construction” as support for the amendment, not as the meaning of the term. Also, this construction conflicts with how EMED evaluates the claim limitation with respect to the prior art. Accordingly, we address EMED’s implicit construction and this post hoc construction, below.” slip op. at 74
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“that Mr. Stoker has a sufficient educational foundation and sufficient experience in sharps protection to help the Board understand the evidence or make factual findings in this proceeding. Further, to the extent that RMS identifies specific deficiencies in the methods and principles supporting Mr. Stoker’s opinions, we find that such matters go to the probative weight of his testimony, as opposed to its admissibility. We note that the policy considerations for excluding expert testimony, such as those implemented by the gatekeeping framework established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), are less compelling in bench proceedings such as inter partes reviews than in jury trials because, unlike a lay jury, the Board by statutory definition has competent scientific ability (35 U.S.C. § 6) and has significant experience in evaluating expert testimony. Accordingly, the danger of prejudice in this proceeding is considerably lower than in a conventional district court trial.” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 8,961,476 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,961,476
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.