• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00412 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable because the Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips combination did not establish the claimed emulator personalization.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On the full record before us, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Gomez’s testimony should be given little to no weight, Patent Owner argues that Mr. Gomez is well qualified under both proposed levels of ordinary skill. Sur-reply 4–5. During the hearing, Petitioner modified its position somewhat, arguing that Mr. Gomez’s “testimony should be accorded little to no weight, particularly where he weighs in on issues specific to financial transactions and smart cards.” Tr. 8:15–18 (emphasis added). Petitioner stated further that “[w]e’re simply asking the Board to take into the account each individual expert’s background knowledge on a per issue basis.” Id. at 59:26–60:2. Based on the full record, we disagree that all of Mr. Gomez’s testimony” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms, except “emulator” and “midlet,” should have their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 12. As to the claim terms “emulator” and “midlet,” Petitioner contends that the ’787 patent expressly defines those terms “so those definitions are controlling.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:47–50, 5:20–22). Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not required to resolve any issues” in this proceeding. PO Resp. 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also 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” slip op. at 14

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,189,787 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,189,787
• Medtronic Corevalve LLC / Medtronic, Inc. v. Speyside Medical, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00239 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 18–23 were not shown unpatentable because the combinations did not establish the claimed carrier-length limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a minimum of either a medical degree and experience working as an interventional cardiologist or a Bachelor’s degree in bioengineering or mechanical engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of prosthetic cardiovascular implants,” and “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). We adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in the Decision on Institution, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 9–10. In its Response, Patent Owner notes that it and its expert, Dr. Vesely, apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 20. Based on our review of the record before us, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Beyond addressing this new argument, we determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Leonhardt’s cylindrical end portions change in shape and length, at least to some degree, when stent 26 is expanded or collapsed. See PO Resp. 26–28. We also credit Dr. Vesely’s uncontroverted and well-reasoned testimony on this point. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 83–85. Furthermore, we agree that the Petition and Dr. Drasler rely 8 Patent Owner actually cites to Exhibit 2013, but this is an apparent typographical error because the quoted language appears in lines 20–22 on page 195 of Exhibit 2027. We note that the quoted testimony reiterates Dr. Drasler’s other testimony that “[t]he length of the Leonhardt device would be the length of the connecting bar plus the length of the stent components at each end of the connecting bar.” Ex. 2027, 195:11–14. solely on connecting bar 29 holding the cylindrical end portions a predetermined distance apart to support the assertion that the stent’s length is substantially equal in each configuration. See Pet. 46–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134– 137. As such, Petitioner has failed to explain the effect that the changes in Leonhardt’s cylindrical end portions have on the overall length of stent 26. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Leonhardt discloses “a length of the carrier element in the moveable configuration being substantially equal to or less than a length of the carrier element in the first expanded configuration.”” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “In view of the above, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Leonhardt and Gabbay. Because we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Leonhardt and Gabbay renders claim 1 obvious, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,377,118 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,377,118
• Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2018-00812 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–3, 16, 21–24, 37, and 38 not shown unpatentable over Reber and Franklin because the combination did not establish the claimed access restrictions and information handling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “invention for the ’539 patent “would have a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in the computer science field including, for example, operating systems, database management, encryption, security algorithms, and secure transaction systems, though additional education can substitute for less work experience and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 61–62). Patent Owner submits that the level of skill would involve “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and three years of work or research experience in the fields of secure transactions and encryption, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and two years of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 16– 20). Patent Owner agrees that its “description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as that of the Petitioner, except that Petitioner’s description requires two years of work or research experience (as compared to three years).” Id. at 17–18. We do not understand any of the parties’ disputes to turn on a precise definition of the level of skill in the art and apply the level of skill as defined by the parties.” slip op. at 6

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

    “To support our analysis of the disputed issues below, we construe “account identifying information” and “third party.” We conclude that there is no need to construe any other term to resolve the issues in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree the claim language supports that the separately recited “third party” must be different from the claimed “provider” and “entity.” As to the secure registry itself, we agree further with Patent Owner that the claim language mandates that the “third party” cannot be the secure registry system. The claims recite that the secure-registry processor is configured such that “account identifying information is provided to a third party.” By using “provided,” the claim instructs that the secure registry must send account-identifying information somewhere, not simply perform an additional operation on the information.5 Patent Owner further focuses on the party at issue. According to Patent Owner, the “third party” should be “a party other than one of these other parties already recited in the claims.” PO Resp. 24. Although the claims recite the “secure registry” as a system, as opposed to the “provider” and “entity,” which it recites as “parties,” we agree with Patent Owner that for a third party to be distinct from the secure registry, it should be distinct from whomever operates the secure registry. See id. at 24–25, 47–48 n.8; infra at 21. Accordingly, we construe “third party” as “a party that is not the secure registry, the entity, or the provider.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “The Petition states that it would have been obvious to perform merchant validation at the processor and database, but gives no reason for making that change. See Pet. 37. Instead, the Petition states a skilled artisan “would have applied the known techniques of Franklin to improve the security of the Reber system” and that doing so would have reduced fraud by merchants. Id. (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 114). As explained, “the known techniques of Franklin” were to perform merchant validation at the merchant’s bank, not at the secure registry. Ex. 1132, 11:43–46 (“The acquiring bank validates the authorization request by verifying that the merchant is a valid merchant and that the credit card number represents a valid number.”). Thus, a reason to use Franklin’s techniques does not further justify modifying Franklin’s teaching to perform validation at the secure registry as claimed. Petitioner attempts to justify the combination in the Reply, arguing that, in Franklin, “it would have been obvious simply to perform the merchant validation procedure at the issuing bank, depending on the needs of a particular implementation (for example, where the issuing bank and the acquiring bank are the same).” Pet. Reply 12–13. Petitioner reasons that “organizing the system in this way would . . . increase efficiency by reducing the overall number of computations (e.g., conducting only one validation/compliance operation and not two separate operations at two separate places).” Id. at 13. Those statements serve to highlight the deficiency of the Petition. Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply do not respond to Patent Owner, other than attempting to fill in a gap in the we conclude Petitioner’s showing regarding access restrictions at the secure registry is inadequate regardless of the construction of “access restrictions for the provider to secure data for the entity.” Petition. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s Reply arguments go too far beyond those of the Petition. See PO Sur-reply 15–16; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (2017); Trial Practice Guide Update 14–15 (Aug. 2018), https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP (“[A] reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. . . . Examples of new issues are new theories or arguments necessary to make out petitioner’s case-in-chief . . . , such as a newly raised rationale to combine . . . that was not expressed in the petition.”); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in excluding a reply as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because Petitioner relied on a new rationale to combine). Petitioner failed to make an adequate showing in the Petition regarding a plain requirement of the claims. The Petition identifies no prior-art disclosure that taught or suggested to skilled artisans to implement access restrictions at the secure registry, and provides insufficient reasons why a skilled artisan would have had reason to do so. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that challenged claims 1, 22, or 37” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,856,539 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,856,539
• Apple Inc. / Visa Inc. et al. v. Universal Secure Registry, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2019 · IPR2018-00810 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Maritzen, Jakobsson, and Niwa.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. United States, 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). The parties’ respective proposals are substantially similar such that there is no apparent dispute between the parties. Also, based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our findings in this proceeding would not differ under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the Specification identifies fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, and possibly a picture of a person as examples of biometric information. Furthermore, we credit Dr. Shoup’s testimony that biometric information falls into the category of “things a person is.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33. Therefore, in the context of the claims and the Specification of the ’826 patent, we construe the term “biometric information” to mean “information about a user’s physical characteristics, such as fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or personal photograph.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree Maritzen does not disclose expressly that PTD 100 is a handheld device. The only disclosure from Maritzen cited in the Petition, ¶ 63, describes the architecture for PTD 100 but makes no mention that PTD 100 is a handheld device. Ex. 1004 ¶ 63. The Petition does not direct us to any other disclosure in Maritzen that explicitly describes any of the disclosed PTD embodiments as being handheld, and we are not aware of any such disclosure. Furthermore, the testimony of Dr. Shoup cited by Petitioner merely repeats the same assertion that Maritzen’s PTD 100 is the first handheld device without providing any support or explanation for this assertion, other than citing the same ¶ 63 of Maritzen. Ex. 1002 ¶ 49.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Maritzen discloses that clearing house 130 verifies that the biometric key (transmitted by PTD 100) is valid by comparing the biometric key to a known biometric key maintained within the clearing house. Ex. 1004 ¶ 48; see also id. at 81 (“Clearing house 130 also validates biometric key 350 against pre-established biometric key 950.”). Maritzen also discloses that “[p]rivacy card 110 only transmits the biometric key. The biometric information identifying the user is not transmitted at any time.” Id. ¶ 44. This disclosure indicates that the biometric key does not contain biometric information. In other words, the biometric key is something different than biometric information, which we have construed to mean “information about a user’s physical characteristics, such as fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or personal photograph.” See supra § III.C. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider replacing the known biometric key in clearing house 103 with second biometric information as taught by Jakobsson because comparing the biometric key to biometric information, rather than the known biometric key, would not be effective to verify the biometric key. In other words, because the biometric key does not contain biometric information, it could not be compared meaningfully to the second biometric information.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,100,826 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,100,826
• St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2019 · IPR2018-00109 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 18 and 20 were not shown unpatentable because Leonhardt did not disclose the claimed central frame structure and the proposed Leonhardt-Johnson combination lacked adequate motivation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the record, including the asserted prior art and, for the purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, and absent any special definition, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 1 recites that the flexible valve element is attached to the “central portion of the frame.” Patent Owner argues that “central portion of the frame” means “central structural frame portion,” which cannot refer solely to an “empty space.” PO Resp. 3–7. Patent Owner explains that, during the related litigation, Petitioner agreed that the central portion of the frame must “actually be part of the structure of the frame.” Id. at 6 (quoting Ex. 2001, 119–20). Accordingly, we discern no dispute on the issue of whether “central portion of the frame” refers to a structural portion of the frame; it does.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner’s argument that Leonhardt’s valve is attached to the central part of the frame of claim 1 fails. Leonhardt’s valve is undeniably attached to its frame because the valve is sutured or glued to stent 26. Claim 1 requires the valve element to be attached to a portion of the frame located along the radial centerline. Ex. 1001, 19:19–20. However, Leonhardt’s frame (stent 26 coupled via connecting bar 29) is a hollow cylinder devoid of structure located along its centerline. Ex. 1017, Figure 1C. Thus, regardless of how Leonhardt’s valve is attached to stent 26 and connecting bar 29, it is not attached to a structure “located along a centerline” as recited in claim 1 and thus claims 18 and 20. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20. 4. Summary For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt anticipates claims 18 and 20.” slip op. at 14

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

    “F. CLAIMS 18 AND 20: OBVIOUSNESS BY LEONHARDT Petitioner argues that even if Leonhardt fails to describe elements as claimed, an ordinarily skilled artisan would consider that “variations” of Leonhardt to meet the claimed limitations would have been obvious “in view of the general knowledge in the art and the limited number of ways of using known elements to achieve expected results.” Pet. 42. Petitioner also argues that “[a]s these are method claims, and not device claims, even if the valve device were somehow unobviously different, which it is not, that difference should be given minimal weight in evaluating the obviousness of the method.” Id. at 44. Petitioner cites no authority for this proposition, and we are aware of none. Claims 18 and 20 are directed to a “transluminal method of inserting an artificial valve as set forth in claim 1.” Id. at 21:1–25 (claim 18), 21:31– 50 (claim 20). Each time claims 18 and 20 refer to an “artificial valve” steps of the recited methods, they refer to the valve set forth in claim 1. None of Petitioner’s arguments persuasively addresses Leonhardt’s failure to describe a flexible valve element attached to a central portion of the frame located along a centerline. See Part II.E. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Leonhardt alone renders claims 18 and 20 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,821,297 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,821,297
• Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00127 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed prior-art modifications lacked adequate support and rational underpinning.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The basis of disagreement boils down to an evaluation of a skilled artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’079 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’079 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively).” Id. at 2:34–39. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13).” slip op. at 22

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

    “We observe that Patent Owner relies on content of the ’079 patent at column 11, lines 31–34 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’079 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’079 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:31–34. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’079 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’079 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction.” slip op. at 7

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

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 21–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 6, 8–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that are “integrally joined to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently discloses that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally. Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja also inadequately explain why combination of Luthi ’202’s teachings with those of either Luthi ’800 or Chan would result in the above-noted “central cavity” as a part of the directional element of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. Although Luthi ’800 and Chan may show spaces or cavities in components of their shoes, there appear substantial differences in the designs of those shoes, and in particular the cushioning aspects, as compared with Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. We credit Dr. Hinrichs’s and Dr. Luthi’s testimony that the presence of such a cavity as shown in Luthi ’800 and Chan would prove detrimental to the medial-lateral stability of Luthi ’202’s shoe, and specifically the directional element of such a shoe that is depicted in Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 42; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 11–13. To that end, we also find inadequate Petitioner’s general position that combining the teachings of Luthi ’202, Luthi ’800, and Chan would result simply in a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ordinary skill in the art . . .” Pet. 35. We are not persuaded that any such combination would yield the “predictable results” advanced by Petitioner, or that “well within the knowledge and skill” of an artisan cited by Petitioner constitutes rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (An assertion of unpatentability based 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.”)” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,339,079 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,339,079
• Skechers USA, Inc. v. Adidas AGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00125 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 20–32 were not shown unpatentable under §103 because the proposed modifications to Luthi ’202 were unsupported and relied on hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “artisan’s experience. In that respect, Petitioner urges that the artisan generally has “substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic polymers,” whereas Patent Owner characterizes the experience as directed to “biomechanical systems.” The ’285 patent is clearly directed to matters of shoe construction, and takes note, for instance, of the desirability of “cushioning and biomechanically supporting the foot.” Ex. 1001, 1:19–21. It is also apparent that an overarching focus of the ’285 patent is concern with “balance” and “support” of a “foot against misorientations such as pronation and supination (i.e. a tilting movement of the forefoot part to the medial and the lateral side, respectively.” Id. at 2:28– 31. Such concerns, in our view, go beyond general experience in the design of flexible elements and plastic polymers. In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15. In crediting Dr. Hinrichs’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art we observe that, although Petitioner makes reference to the testimony of its declarant Mr. Ganaja (see Pet. 6 (citing 1002 ¶¶ 39–43)), Mr. Ganaja makes no evaluation of his own in that testimony in connection with the level of ordinary skill. We have considered the respective opinions of the parties when it comes to the level of ordinary skill in the art. In reaching our decision as to the merits of this proceeding, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence as to the ordinary skill of an artisan.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20

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

    “column 11, lines 23–26 to support the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” that it advances. That portion of the ’285 patent describes embodiments of the invention appearing in Figures 19 to 25. Referencing particular leaf spring elements 22 and 23 of those embodiments, the ’285 patent states that “[t]ypically the restoring force exerts a force that has a component orthogonal to the sole plate (e.g., for cushioning) and a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction (e.g., for acceleration).” Ex. 1001, 11:23–26. While that language mirrors the meaning of “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” proposed by Patent Owner, we discern that the noted clause also begins with the term “[t]ypically.” That leaf spring elements may “typically” include a component parallel to the sole in the rearward direction does not lend itself to the conclusion that a “leaf spring” or “leaf spring element” necessarily includes such a component. Rather, it conveys the opposite. In that respect, the plain understanding of the pertinent content of the ’285 patent is that, while, perhaps, not typical, the ’285 patent contemplates other component arrangements, logically including those in which the parallel component is not in the rearward direction. Indeed, our above-noted understanding is also consistent with other embodiments described in the ’285 patent. For instance, embodiments depicted in Figures 13–16 show elements 23 extending in a forward direction with respect to the sole. The elements 23 of those figures are described as “leaf spring elements.” Id. at 10:15–50. Moreover, the ‘285 patent makes explicit that those leaf spring elements “are either forwardly or rearwardly directed.” Id. at 10:49–50. Patent Owner’s position that the claimed “leaf springs” or “leaf spring elements” require a parallel component extending in the rearward direction is inconsistent with these particular figures and the accompanying description in the ’285 patent. To that end, Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the meaning of the term “leaf spring” encompasses only a parallel component in the rearward direction, yet the ’285 patent clearly provides that leaf springs may also have components that extend in the forward direction. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we again conclude that “leaf spring[s]” and “leaf spring element[s]” mean “a flexible member that deflects and provides a restoring force with an orthogonal and a parallel component in response to a load applied to the sole.” We discern that it is unnecessary to construe expressly any other claim term of the ’285 patent. See 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 7

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

    “substantial dissection and modification of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17. That dissection is premised on Mr. Ganaja’s assessment of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would take from the record at hand. Yet, in our view, neither Mr. Ganaja nor Petitioner explains adequately how the teachings of the prior art would have led one down the path that they advocate. For instance, it is decidedly unclear from the record that any “longitudinal groove” as advanced in Petitioner’s annotated illustrations of Luthi ’202’s Figure 17 reproduced herein exists in the configuration proposed by Petitioner. Although Petitioner and Mr. Ganaja postulate that it does exist, Luthi ’202’s teachings are less than determinative in that respect. We credit the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs and Dr. Luthi, that no such groove or “gap” exists as proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 18–21 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–35, 42–43; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 8 and 11–13). Moreover, even if such groove does exist, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Ganaja adequately explains why the presence of such groove would create at least two leaf springs or leaf spring elements that “come together integrally to form a single end not directly connected to the sole plate,” as required by all the claims involved in this proceeding. We agree with, and credit, the testimony of Dr. Hinrichs that “Luthi ’202 consistently disclosed that the strut elements run the entire width of the shoe.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:47–50 (“the strut elements 22 extend substantially from the medial edge of the lateral edge of lower plate 26 . . .”)). In extending the entire width of the shoe, strut elements 22 (and 222) are more appropriately viewed as a single element (e.g., a spring element) rather than multiple spring elements that come together integrally.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,345,285 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,345,285
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00343 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combinations and calculations lacked adequate support and relied on hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’290 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 57–61, of the ’290 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’290 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 60, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

  Patent outcomesUS 7,554,290 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,554,290
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00344 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable over Takano and Yanai under §103 because Petitioner’s evidence did not establish the 20 Amp Limitation without unsupported assumptions and hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Takano, however, discloses a battery having a plurality of cells connected in series. Ex. 1072 ¶¶ 4, 11, 26. Although we do not question that connecting battery cells in series and/or parallel is known generally in the art, Petitioner does not provide adequate specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Takano to connect cells in parallel when Takano clearly discloses a series connection. Dr. Abraham’s testimony that the type of connection would be chosen “as needed to provide whatever target voltage and amperage is desired for a particular application,” by itself, does not provide a sufficient reason to modify Takano’s series connection. Petitioner does not explain how the prior art discloses a desired voltage or amperage that would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takano in the manner proposed. In this case, the only teaching of a desired amperage comes from the ’173 patent itself. Furthermore, Dr. Abraham’s reliance on the disclosure at column 5, lines 59–63, of the ’173 patent as supporting the alleged obviousness of combining two cells in parallel is improper. This passage of the ’173 patent describes alternative configurations of the patentees’ own invention; it is not describing prior art. Relying on knowledge gleaned only from the challenged patent’s disclosure is impermissible hindsight. Cf. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (As long as a judgment on obviousness “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “18650-size and 26650-size cells is flawed and thus fails to support Petitioner’s assertion that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Takano and Yanai. Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “e) Secondary Considerations Patent Owner argues that “[n]umerous secondary considerations strongly favor the patentability of the challenged claims.” PO Resp. 26–59. Because we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Takano and Yanai render claim 1 obvious, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions regarding secondary considerations.” slip op. at 23

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Third, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that “three Yanai-based 18650 cells in parallel” would satisfy the 20 Amp Limitation is a new argument. Paper 62, 2. In our view, this argument does more than merely address Patent Owner’s argument regarding Dr. Abraham’s addition error. Rather, by relying on three cells instead of two, Petitioner attempts to provide a new theory as to why the combination of Takano and Yanai renders the challenged claims obvious that was not set forth clearly in the Petition. Because Petitioner waited until the Reply to make this argument, Patent Owner did not have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s new argument. We thus decline to consider Petitioner’s new argument as it is an improper reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner made no attempt to explain why using three cells would have been just as obvious as using two cells is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof with respect to obviousness to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,944,173 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,944,173
• Hilti, Inc. / Snap-On Incorporated v. Milwaukee Electric Tool CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01166 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Takano and Yanai because the proposed combination relied on unsupported assumptions and impermissible hindsight.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “After institution, Snap-On Incorporated (“Snap-On”) filed a Petition and a Motion for Joinder to this proceeding. IPR2016-00345, Papers 2, 3. We granted the Motion for Joinder, and IPR2016-00345 was joined with IPR2015-01166 and terminated. Paper 24, 6. Consequently, Hilti and Snap-On (collectively, “Petitioner”) are joined in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We construed three claim terms in our Decision to Institute: (1) “hand held power tool,” (2) “battery cells being capable of producing an average discharge current greater than or equal to approximately 20 amps,” and (3) “nominal voltage.” Inst. Dec. 6–12. Neither party has indicated that the interpretations for those phrases were improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determinations. Accordingly, the following interpretations are not in dispute and apply to this Decision:” slip op. at 6

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

    “select a positive electrode surface area of 540 cm2 for Yanai’s cell 1-4 would be to rely on the disclosure of Adachi; that is, to assert that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Takano and Yanai with the teaching of Adachi. Petitioner, however, has repeatedly argued that this is not what it proposes. Reply 3; Tr. 22:22–23:4. Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not provide an adequate reason to combine Adachi with Takano and Yanai.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner

    “Furthermore, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on (1) selecting an 18650-size or 26650-size cell; (2) estimating the positive electrode surface area to be 540 cm2; (3) selecting a foil thickness of 15 micrometers; (4) selecting an average discharge voltage of 3.6 volts; and (5) for 18650-size cells, connecting two in parallel. Petitioner fails to point out how the prior art indicates that using all of these particular values in combination would be desirable for a lithium-based battery pack when several other possible values could have been selected. Where “‘the prior art gave either no indication of which parameters were critical or no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful,’ courts should reject ‘hindsight claims of obviousness.’” In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on impermissible hindsight.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,999,510 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,999,510

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.