- Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01414 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the 17 combinations listed in the order.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The fact that other parts of the claims recite locations of the image capture devices and the overlap zones does not mean that anything more should be read into the “without duplication of objects” clause, which appears clear on its face. Further, the claims do not say anything about parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. Indeed, parallax is not the same as the duplication of objects. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 11 (“Duplication . . . is different from parallax. For example, when each of the cameras have a common center of projection, there will be little or no parallax, but given their overlapping fields of view, the cameras may nonetheless capture the same objects multiple times resulting in duplication.” (citation omitted)). Thus, we are not persuaded that reading in any language pertaining to parallax effects would be appropriate based on the language of the claims.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Neither party explains in detail why their proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. After reviewing the evidence, including the cited prior art, however, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s definition is substantially correct. The ’724 patent describes “rearview vision systems which provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle” using “image capture devices, such as CMOS [(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor)] imaging arrays and the like.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–27. “Camera-based rearview vision systems” had been proposed at the time, but had not “obtained commercial acceptance” and suffered from various problems according to the ’724 patent. Id. at col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 55. The ’724 patent further acknowledges that various aspects of the disclosed systems, such as, for example, CMOS and charge-coupled device (CCD) imaging arrays, optical correction systems, various types of image filtering, backlit liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), and systems for measuring the distance of an object behind the vehicle, were known at the time. See, e.g., id. at col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 12, ll. 33–37, col. 13, ll. 26–41, col. 17, ll. 48–62, col. 20, ll. 42–53, col. 22, ll. 3–19, 44–55. Drs. Wolberg and Wilhelm further testify as to the development and state of the art by the time of the ’724 patent, which we find helpful in assessing what background knowledge would have been available to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 27–39; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 20–27. As a whole, the evidence indicates a higher level of ordinary skill than what Patent Owner proposes, and suggests, for example, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had at least some understanding of ways in which images from multiple cameras could be combined. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 28–38; Ex. 1003, 3, 6; Ex. 1005, 3–6. Accordingly, based on our review of the ’724 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’724 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, computer science, or physics (or equivalent work experience), with some familiarity with how cameras may be used in vehicles and a working understanding of combining image data from multiple cameras and microprocessor-driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary decision making. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id. (citation omitted). We first summarize the evidence presented regarding Wang’s alleged public accessibility. Wang is a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and has a copyright notation of “TH0367-3/91/0000/0100$01.00 © 1991 IEEE” on the first page. See Ex. 1009, 1. Petitioner contends that the document was published “on May 27–31, 1991,” citing the testimony of Dr. Wolberg. Pet. 7. Dr. Wolberg testifies that “[a]s a person who regularly reviews scholarly articles, including IEEE publications such as the Wang article, and as someone who regularly attends conferences such as the IEEE conference in which the Wang paper was presented,” he believes that Wang was published in May 1991. Ex. 1020 ¶ 84. Dr. Wolberg also discusses two publications (Exhibits 1040 and 1042) that cite Wang prior to the effective filing date of the ’724 patent (May 22, 1996), “which further indicates to [Dr. Wolberg] that Wang was publicly accessible.” Id.; see Ex. 1040, 12 (cited reference 16); Ex. 1042, 3 (cited reference 4). Finally, he cites the University of Edinburgh website, which “states that the authors of the Wang article began work on CMOS imaging sensors as early as 1986, and began publishing articles reporting the results of their work that led to the incorporation of a CMOS chip in a video camera in 1989.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1044). Petitioner presents additional evidence with its Reply that allegedly confirms Wang’s public accessibility prior to May 22, 1996. Reply 11–12. First, Petitioner submits a declaration from Gerard P. Grenier, the Senior Director of Publishing Technologies for the IEEE.17 Ex. 1055. Mr. Grenier states that Wang “was published and presented as part of [the] Euro [A]SIC ’91 [conference] which occurred May 27–31, 1991.” Id. ¶ 9. According to Mr. Grenier, “[t]he Article was published by IEEE as part of the conference proceedings on the date of the conference. Copies of the conference proceedings were made available to attendees of the conference.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Grenier also testifies that “IEEE maintains records of the dates on which articles were first made available for public download,” “[t]hese records are maintained as part of the ordinary course of business of the IEEE [and] are updated regularly as articles are published,” and he has “personal knowledge of the records.” Id. ¶ 7. Second, Petitioner submits a copy of Wang, with a “EURO ASIC ’91” cover page and table of contents, “[s]helved” at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City, Missouri in 1991. Ex. 1046. Third, Petitioner submits a certified copy of Wang from the Library of Congress, with the same cover page and table of contents and a date stamp of June 5, 1992. Ex. 1060. Fourth, Petitioner notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision finding similar claims with a priority date of February 26, 1993, unpatentable based in part on Wang in 17 Petitioner submitted a substantially similar version of the declaration, dated approximately one month earlier, with its Petition, but did not discuss the declaration in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1039, with Ex. 1055. Our analysis applies equally to both versions of the declaration. In re Magna Elecs., Inc., 611 F. App’x 969, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (Ex. 1045). Reply 11. Patent Owner disputes the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence of” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,643,724 - Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01410 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combinations listed in the Order.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. See supra Sections II.A.2–3. Rather, we interpret “synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects appearing in the overlap zones, and interpret “synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the claims allow for a “minimal” level of multiple exposure and only require a “nearly exact” representation of what the virtual camera would see. We are not persuaded that any parallax effects that might remain when the pattern recognition techniques of Mitsubishi are used in Yamamoto’s system, as Petitioner asserts, would cause more than “minimal” multiple exposure or prevent the resulting image from being a “nearly exact” representation. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 110; Ex. 1066 ¶ 25. Moreover, even if the resulting image in the combined system would suffer from some parallax effects, we do not see how that contradicts Petitioner’s asserted reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamamoto’s system, or why parallax concerns would have outweighed the advantage of improved image processing, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have abandoned the three camera arrangement of Yamamoto. See Reply 15–17; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In that respect, we find Dr. Wolberg’s analysis of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings compelling. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 101–15; Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 22–37.” slip op. at 32
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“public accessibility. PO Resp. 17–21. Based on all of the evidence of record,18 however, we are persuaded that Wang was disseminated or otherwise made available prior to May 22, 1996, to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence could have located it. Most probative are the Library of Congress certification and Linda Hall Library documentation, which show that Wang was catalogued and readily available through these libraries. See Exs. 1046, 1060. Mr. Grenier further testifies that copies of the article were made available to attendees of the EURO ASIC ’91 conference, which was an IEEE academic conference pertaining to ASICs. See Ex. 1039; Ex. 1055; Ex. 1060, 2–13 (stating that the conference “includes reports on ASIC design experiences, advances in design methods and tools, and on the evolution of ASIC technology,” and is “the definitive place . . . for the academic community to exchange ideas”; listing numerous papers to be 18 We are persuaded that all of Petitioner’s evidence should be considered, including the evidence introduced with the Reply, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, during a conference call with the parties on May 26, 2016, Patent Owner sought authorization to file a motion to “strike” Petitioner’s new evidence and portions of Petitioner’s Reply. See Paper 20. We determined that a motion to strike was not appropriate at that time, but stated that “[s]hould either party request a hearing in this proceeding, . . . the parties may address the propriety of the exhibits and Petitioner’s Reply during oral argument. If the parties choose not to request a hearing, Patent Owner may request another conference call and we will determine whether additional briefing or any other action may be appropriate at that time.” Id. at 3; Ex. 1071, 20:14–22:18. Patent Owner did not request oral argument, and did not request another conference call to address the issue. presented relating to, for example, digital signal processing ASICs, chip architecture, and graphic application and image processing ASICs). Given the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent set forth above, see supra Section II.B, we are persuaded that the EURO ASIC ’91 conference is the type of conference that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been interested in and likely attended. The dates and documentation for the conference also are consistent with the other submitted evidence, including the copyright notation of Wang itself, which states in part “© 1991 IEEE.” See Ex. 1009, 1. Finally, as Petitioner correctly points out, the first article cited by Dr. Wolberg shows that Wang in fact was accessed by some other individuals working in the field of image sensors. See Reply 12; Ex. 1040. Based on the record presented, we are persuaded that Wang is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,643,724 - Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00891 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Praxair failed to prove claims 1–16 unpatentable under the three §103 grounds because it did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable
“sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration information from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable. Because Praxair’s obviousness analysis for dependent apparatus claims 2–11, as well as the dependent method claims 12–16, asserted in each of the grounds in this proceeding relies on the deficient asserted combination including Bathe and Peters, we similarly are not persuaded that Praxair has sustained its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“argument and testimony that Peters’s valve could work on Bathe’s cylinder does not explain why or how a person of skill in the art would combine Bathe and Peters, only that they could. PO Resp. 43–44. That Bathe could be modified by simply placing Peters’s valve on the cylinder to control gas flow from the cylinder, does not, alone, satisfy the requirements for combining the prior art. See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Experts “testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to her belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so.”). Petitioner’s challenge lacks an adequate motivation, not only to incorporate the smart valve of Peters into Bathe, but also to: (1) repurpose the incorporated valve by using (a) its “memory to store gas data comprising one or more of gas identification, gas expiration date and gas concentration” and (b) its processor and transmitter “to send and receive wireless optical line-of-sight signals to communicate the gas data to the control module that controls gas delivery to a subject” and (2) modify the Bathe system, such that its CPU would receive the wirelessly transmitted gas concentration data, even though the CPU already receives (and uses) flow and operator input data to provide a desired NO concentration. See Ex. 1005, 6:5–20.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“read [Bathe] and been motivated to apply subsequent improvements to component parts of that system, such as the improved valve of [Peters].” Ex. 1002 at ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:11–15). Dr. Stone does not, however, point to any persuasive evidence or disclosure in Bathe, or provide sufficient explanation or reasoning to support this statement. See id. In particular, Dr. Stone does not describe what the “improvements” would have been or provide sufficient rationale as to why Bathe, which already has a connection between a supply cylinder and a gas delivery device and teaches verification of gas concentration from the cylinder by sensor 65 in the delivery system, would be improved by Peters’s manually actuated valve handle and included memory to meet the limitations of the independent claims. See Ex. 1005, 6:11–15. We find Dr. Stone’s testimony deficient as to showing any suggestion in Bathe or otherwise that would have motivated one of skill in the art to add Peters’s valve and memory to Bathe. We are also not persuaded that a person of skill in the art would have” slip op. at 23
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,573,210 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,573,210 - Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Ino Therapeutics, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00889 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations because Praxair did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the references.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeOther
“D. INO’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Stone (Exs. 1002, 2020). Because we do not rely on Dr. Stone’s testimony in a manner adverse to INO, the motion to exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelOther
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Praxair asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and would have had at least two years’ experience in biomedical engineering designing medical gas delivery or monitoring systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–18). INO does not expressly dispute the general level of skill in the art proffered by Praxair but adds through its declarant, Mr. Warren P. Heim, that one of skill in the art would “know Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Current Good Manufacturing Practices.” Ex. 2021 ¶ 107.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“presented by both parties and the prior art itself, we find that Praxair has not shown a sufficient reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the proposed combination of Bathe, Peters, FR ’804, and the IR Standard. PO Resp. 36–53. INO points out, correctly, that Praxair has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Peters’s smart valve, having a memory for compiling data for billing and invoicing functions, with Bathe. Id. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Praxair’s inability to provide sufficient motivation for combining Peters and Bathe is remedied by the introduction of FR ’804, particularly given that Bathe already included an in-line sensing unit to sense and verify the gas concentration from the cylinder as required by FDA guidance. Id. at 47.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time of litigation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”). “Good ideas may well appear ‘obvious’ after they have been disclosed.” Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc., 119 F.3d 953, 956 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the instant case, Praxair’s attempt to transform Bathe from having a sensed in-line gas concentration being used to perform verification of gas supply and gas delivery to a subject or patient into a device receiving gas concentration data from Peters’s handle and memory on the gas supply cylinder in order to verify and control gas delivery to a patient smacks of hindsight reasoning. After considering the evidence and arguments of both parties, we conclude that Praxair has failed to carry its burden of” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,573,209 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,573,209 - Fitbit, Inc. v. Bodymedia, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 8, 2016 · IPR2016-00707 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Fitbit did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–29 would have been obvious over Mault 470 and Mault 089, which were not shown to be prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable construction of “contextual data of the individual” as recited in the claim limitation 1(b)(i) is “data relating to an individual’s activity state environment, surrounding, or location.” Pet. 17. Petitioner asserts that this construction was applied in the related ITC proceeding. Id. (citing Ex. 1015, 17–22, 33). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed construction. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for “contextual data of the individual.”” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“of the claimed subject matter without explaining what the parent application conveys to those skilled in the art. See Pet. 9–10 (discussing whether June 2000 applications contain “equivalent description” of claim 1 limitations); Ex. 1003 ¶ 32 (addressing whether “equivalent description” exits in the parent applications). Contrary to Petitioner’s application of the “equivalent description,” the test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is not “the presence or absence of literal support in the [parent application] for the claim language,” In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983), but instead is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter, Vas-Cath Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563–64; see Yorkey v. Diab, 605 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d at 1375). In the present case, Petitioner relies on conclusory statements that [t]he June 2000 applications do not contain an equivalent description of a processing unit configured to provide feedback for an individual’s weight-loss goal by performing each of the steps recited in subparts b.(i)–(v) of claim 1 in sufficient detail such that one of skill in the art can clearly conclude the applicant invented the claimed invention.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)
“Mault 470 and Mault 089 are prior art, and, thus, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–29 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted ground that claims 1–29 would have been unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mault 470 and Mault 089.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,398,546 - PTAB · Aug 30, 2016 · IPR2014-01448 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its final written decision, leaving claims 1 and 7 unpatentable over He and Korodi under § 103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, concluding Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Specifically, we determined Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence claims 1 and 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over He and Korodi (Final Dec. 11–25). In light of our determination that Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 7 of the ’279 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over He and Korodi, we took no position on whether the same claims are also obvious over the combination of the teachings and suggestions of Gustafsson and He (id. at 25).” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,671,279 - Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC / Microsoft Corporation Inc. v. Adc Technology Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · CBM2015-00026 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 8–14 are unpatentable under §103 as obvious over the instituted prior-art combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“D. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Garry E. Kitchen, testifies that, based on his experience in the commercial software art, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related engineering discipline or equivalent experience or education. Declaration of Garry Kitchen, Ex. 1011 ¶ 33. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Mr. Kitchen as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“Petitioner provides specific constructions for each of the interference means appearing in the dependent claims. Pet. 22–24. Patent Owner disagrees that the dependent claims recitation of interference means requires “additional functional limitations piled on top of the disclosed structure.” PO Resp. 7. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that there is only one construction of interference means, namely that which Petitioner provided with respect to the interference means of claim 8. Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner and contends that the four dependent claims themselves recite specific functions and must further limit the claim from which they depend. Reply 7. We determine that it is unnecessary to determine whether Patent Owner or Petitioner is correct as to the specific construction of the interference means recited in claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 as the claims are unpatentable under either construction. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Program, Data and Combination of Program and Data Claim 8 contains the recitation “the program, the data, and a combination of the program and data together.” Petitioner contends that the term should mean “the program and/or the data.” Pet. 28; Reply 9. Petitioner, however, contends that Patent Owner was silent as to the meaning of the term during ex parte reexamination. Pet. 29. Patent Owner generally contends that the claim recitation is definite and requires operations to be performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data.” PO Resp. 8. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction (operations are performed either on “a program, or on data, or on a combination of the program and data”) as it is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term and appears to be substantially the same as Petitioner’s construction. Reply, 9–10, Ex. 1011, ¶ 54.” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“The obviousness-type double patenting rejection does not demonstrate that the earlier filed ’995 patent described the invention, with all its claimed limitations. First, the rejection was based on obviousness, not anticipation. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (“One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.”). Second, the Examiner’s identification of “common subject matter” consists merely of that which appears in the preamble of challenged claim 8. Although the Examiner stated that there was no apparent reason why the present claims were not presented in the earlier application, Mr. Kitchen presents credible testimony that the clock means limitation “for keeping a predetermined time period after said executing means starts execution of the program or data processing,” did not appear in the earlier filed applications and written description support for it was added in the continuation-in-part ’784 application via new Figure 12. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 46–47 and 49; compare Ex. 1001, Figures 1–14, with Ex. 1014, Figures 1–11. Based on the evidence of record, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s testimony as it is consistent with the evidence of record and hold that Petitioner has established that claims 8–14 are limited to the July 2, 1998, filing date of the ’784 application, which resulted in the issuance of the ’520 patent.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 6,193,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,193,520 - Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Dreamwell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01753 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board abused its discretion or misapprehended or overlooked a matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an 1 The “statement” to which the Request apparently refers reads: “Petitioner does not cite any persuasive evidence that Kochi achieves any of the asserted advantages of the disclosed alloy without the claimed and disclosed pearlite structure.” Decision 12. unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is not enough to show merely that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“composition that provided “excellent wire-drawing workability, generating wire insusceptible to wire break, extending die life, increasing a wire-drawing rate thereby enhancing productivity during the manufacturing process, reducing cost, and producing a product, e.g., spring that is less susceptible to breakage.” Id. at 33–34. According to Kochi’s disclosure, however, the benefits on which Petitioner relied for the proffered rationale result from: adequately controlling the requirements for the metal microstructure thereof (the area ratio of the second-phase ferrite, and the pearlite lamellar spacing) and the requirements for the chemical components thereof. Decision 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 71); see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 41 (disclosing the need to control the area ratio of second-phase ferrite to achieve improved resistance to wire-break). Kochi also discloses that “pearlite is the primary constituent of the metal microstructure.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 43. As stated in the Decision, there was no persuasive evidence that Kochi achieves any of the asserted advantages of the disclosed alloy without the disclosed pearlite lamellar structure. Decision 12. In weighing the evidence, the Decision determined there was no persuasive evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that the asserted benefits in Kochi can be achieved with an alloy that does not include the metal microstructure of Kochi. Id.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,474,805 - Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc v. Acantha LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00333 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 44–54 and 101–105 obvious over Errico and Koshino or Campbell.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner has not shown an apparent reason to combine the relied upon teachings of Errico and Koshino or Campbell in the manner set forth in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring, for obviousness, “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition and declaration do offer additional arguments and testimony to support the proposed modification but they too are insufficient. First, the Petition states, with support from Dr. Ferree, that “it was known in the orthopedic industry at the time of the filing of the ’008 patent that it was desirable for orthopedic implants to be limited to the minimum number of components necessary” due to “cost of manufacturing, inventory, ease of use, crevice corrosion, and simplicity of surgery.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). Limiting the number of components may be desirable, if the reduction can be achieved without compromising design goals. Yet, Errico expressly teaches a more complex structure because of the benefits it provides. Those benefits include that the screw can be angulated in countless directions to provide a surgeon flexibility during implantation (Ex. 1003, 7:22–24), that the screw is locked into whatever angle ultimately is chosen by the “crush locking” of the interior semi-spherical volume of the coupling element against the semi-spherical head (id. at 5:5–7), that the coupling element fully mates with the hole in the plate regardless of the angle of the screw (id. at 6:62–67), and that the coupling element is secured just beneath (posterior to) the snap ring (id. at 7:51–55, Fig. 6). The Petition next states, with support from Dr. Ferree, that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that it is critical for the bone plate to have as thin a profile as possible” but that “[t]he coupling element in Errico . . . requires more space in the bore, and thus necessarily increases the profile (thickness) of the plate.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 42–43). However, neither the Petition nor Dr. Ferree cites evidence that using a coupling element requires more anterior-posterior space in the bore than using a screw head alone. See Pet. 15; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 42–43. In fact, the record evidence tends to show the opposite. In Koshino, as well as in the ’008 patent, a substantial gap exists above the screw head. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 6; Ex. 1001, Figs. 5–6.6 As discussed above, the ’008 patent describes this gap as desirable because it, along with transverse tolerance, accommodates angulation of the screw. Ex. 1001, 5:43–52. Petitioner has not shown an apparent reason to combine the relied upon teachings of Errico and Koshino or Campbell in the manner set forth in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring, for obviousness, “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentable
“Additionally, Errico teaches away from the proposed combination because such a combination would render Errico inoperable for its intended purpose. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Additionally, a reference may teach away from a use when that use would render the result inoperable.”). Errico seeks to provide an” slip op. at 15
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc v. Acantha LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00334 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 59–91 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over Errico and Koshino or Campbell.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner has not presented sufficient reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed combination and because Errico teaches away from such a combination, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of the claims challenged as obvious over Errico and Koshino or Campbell. III. CONCLUSION There is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The Petition and declaration do offer additional arguments and testimony to support the proposed modification but they too are insufficient. First, the Petition states, with support from Dr. Ferree, that “it was known in the orthopedic industry at the time of the filing of the ’008 patent that it was desirable for orthopedic implants to be limited to the minimum number of components necessary” due to “cost of manufacturing, inventory, ease of use, crevice corrosion, and simplicity of surgery.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). Limiting the number of components may be desirable, if the reduction can be achieved without compromising design goals. Yet, Errico expressly teaches a more complex structure because of the benefits it provides. Those benefits include that the screw can be angulated in countless directions to provide a surgeon flexibility during implantation (Ex. 1003, 7:22–24), that the screw is locked into whatever angle ultimately is chosen by the “crush locking” of the interior semi-spherical volume of the coupling element against the semi-spherical head (id. at 5:5–7), that the coupling element fully mates with the hole in the plate regardless of the angle of the screw (id. at 6:62–67), and that the coupling element is secured just beneath (posterior to) the snap ring (id. at 7:51–55, Fig. 6). The Petition next states, with support from Dr. Ferree, that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that it is critical for the bone plate to have as thin a profile as possible” but that “[t]he coupling element in Errico . . . requires more space in the bore, and thus necessarily increases the profile (thickness) of the plate.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 42–43). However, neither the Petition nor Dr. Ferree cites evidence that using a coupling element requires more anterior-posterior space in the bore than using a screw head alone. See Pet. 15; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 42–43. In fact, the record evidence tends to show the opposite. In Koshino, as well as in the ’008 patent, a substantial gap exists above the screw head. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 6; Ex. 1001, Figs. 5–6.6 As discussed above, the ’008 patent describes this gap as desirable because it, along with transverse tolerance, accommodates angulation of the screw. Ex. 1001, 5:43–52. Petitioner has not shown an apparent reason to combine the relied upon teachings of Errico and Koshino or Campbell in the manner set forth in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring, for obviousness, “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundNot shown unpatentable
“Additionally, Errico teaches away from the proposed combination because such a combination would render Errico inoperable for its intended purpose. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Additionally, a reference may teach away from a use when that use would render the result inoperable.”). Errico seeks to provide an 6 Campbell also shows a gap above the screw head, although it appears to be relatively smaller than the gap above the screw head in Koshino or the ’008 patent. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 22. implantable plate “having a polyaxial coupling of the screw to the plate, whereby a single plate is compatible with a wide range of screw-in angles” and “which has a simple and effective locking mechanism for locking the bone screw to the plate.” Ex. 1003, 3:59–67 (emphasis added). Modifying Errico as Petitioner proposes would destroy at least one of these features. In Errico, the coupling element facilitates angulation of the screw relative to the plate prior to full implantation and subsequent locking of the screw to the plate in a given angulation upon full implantation. The proposed combination would remove the coupling element without substituting in anything that would preserve both features. Although the Petition explains how the proposed modified screw could angulate with respect to the plate (thereby allowing polyaxial coupling to the plate), the Petition does not explain how the proposed screw (or its head) could be locked to the plate at any particular angle. See Pet. 14–18.” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Citing declaration testimony of Bret A. Ferree, M.D., the Petition argues that using a screw head from either Koshino or Campbell instead of Errico’s coupling element “is nothing more than an obvious choice in design, and one that would have been readily contemplated and implemented by a POSA at the time of the invention, for both mechanical and clinical reasons, with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 38–39). The cited testimony, however, is not persuasive. In paragraph 38, Dr. Ferree simply testifies to the ultimate conclusion of law that the claims are obvious. Ex. 1006 ¶ 38. And paragraph 39 is virtually identical to the just-quoted conclusory argument set forth in the Petition. Id. at ¶ 39.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
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.