- PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructioncites Phillips - PTAB · Mar 31, 2021 · IPR2020-00001 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12, but denied entry of substitute claims 20–25 because claims 20 and 24 were indefinite and claims 21–23 and 25 were obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In the Institution Decision, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient experience and/or education in the food industry to possess an understanding of (1) sugar particle size as it pertains to brewed beverages and (2) sugar particle size screening.” Inst. Dec. 7. We observed that this level of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of ordinary skill that we adopted in a related case that involves similar subject matter. See Red Diamond, Inc. v. Southern Visions, LLP, PGR2019- 00045, Paper 9 at 6–8 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2019). We also asked the parties to expressly discuss the level of ordinary skill in the art in the remaining briefing if either party disagreed with our determination. Inst. Dec. 7–8. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes the level of ordinary skill identified in the Institution Decision (see Revised MTA 7–8), and because we continue to find that the stated level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“consider” the Revised Motion to Amend and cancel original claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12. Revised MTA 1. Because Patent Owner has not indicated that our consideration of the Revised Motion to Amend is contingent on a determination that original challenged claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12 are unpatentable, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original challenged claims 1, 5, 8, and 10–12. See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018- 01129, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential) (“Lectrosonics”) (“A request to cancel claims will not be regarded as contingent.”). The remaining issue before us is whether to grant the Revised Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claims 20–25.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“sugar, which indicates that between 2–25% of the particles in EFG sugar can have a size in the range of U.S mesh sieve nos. 20–30. Ex. 2003, 42 (showing the “Typical Analysis” for “X-fine” granulated sugar). Even if we were to agree with Patent Owner that this shows a typical analysis for EFG sugar, it still presents a variance of up to 20% for particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 20 and 30. Ex. 2003, 42. Thus, the evidence of record suggests that the particle size distribution for EFG sugar, including the number of particles falling in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, can vary among different EFG sugars. Thus, the term “typical grocery store sugar,” “might mean several different things” in terms of the number of its particles having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35, and “no informed and confident choice is available among the contending definitions.” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Labs UT, 940 F.3d 680, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 800 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); Opp. 9; Reply 4.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“sugar in its products (Ex. 1008, 11:2–5), and Mr. Ebersole’s testimony demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that Standard Grade and Medium Grade sugars are commercial grade granulated sugars and that the particles in Standard Granulated and Medium Granulated sugars “are almost entirely within the range of U.S. mesh nos. 3–35” (Ex. 2076 ¶ 51). The evidence of record thus supports Petitioner’s assertion that following the typical industry practice of using 1 ounce of tea particles and 1 pound of sugar per gallon of tea, and using a commercial grade granulated sugar (as taught by Cooper) such as Standard Granulated or Medium Granulated sugar (which are known to be “almost entirely within the range of U.S. mesh nos. 3–35”), would yield a product having a blend ratio of tea particles to sugar granules having a size in the range of U.S. mesh sieve nos. 3–35 in the range of 1:16–1:25, as recited in proposed substitute claims 21 and 23. Opp. 20–21; Ex. 1008, 11:2–5; Ex. 1001, 17–20, 57–65. In view of the foregoing, we find Petitioner has established sufficiently that the teachings of Cooper, considered in view of admitted prior art sweetening practices, teaches or suggests all of the limitations of proposed substitute claims 21 and 23. Petitioner has presented evidence demonstrating sufficiently that Cooper teaches the use of sugar having particle sizes falling “almost entirely” within the range of mesh 3–35, that following typical industry practices using such sugar would result in the claimed blend ratio of tea to sugar having a size in the range of mesh 3–35, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to brew commercial-sized batches of tea, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, as Cooper allows.” slip op. at 26
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,549,634 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00045 · APJ Christopher C Kennedy · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 13, 18, and 19, but denied substitute claims 23–25 because their percentage-and-range limitations introduced new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“3. Scope of Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Although Patent Owner does not appear to separately address this requirement in the Revised Motion to Amend, see generally Revised MTA, we have reviewed the proposed substitute claims and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because they add limitations that render each proposed substitute claim narrower than original challenged claim 13.2 Petitioner does not contend otherwise. See generally Opp. On this record, we determine that the Revised Motion to Amend satisfies this requirement.” slip op. at 9
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,071,852 - PTAB · Oct 1, 2015 · IPR2014-00714 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 11, 74, and 81 and denied substitute claims 154–156 because they broadened claim scope, lacked written-description support, and were not shown patentable over Mostov.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review must identify “all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Generally, a party does not become a “real party-in-interest” merely through association with another party in an unrelated endeavor. Id. A party also is not considered a real party in interest in an inter partes review solely because it is a joint defendant with a petitioner in a patent infringement suit or is part of a joint defense group with a petitioner in the suit. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a “real party-in-interest” to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term “real party-in-interest” to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. Here, even assuming this contention is timely, Patent Owner has failed to provide any evidence, besides the mere fact that the other parties are co-defendants in a lawsuit or alleged infringers, to support the contention that Petitioner has failed to name all of the real parties in interest. That one fact, without any further proof of control or involvement by these parties in this proceeding, is insufficient to establish that Petitioner has failed to name” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“ii. Petitioner’s Expert Patent Owner asks that we “dismiss [Petitioner’s] Expert Declaration and disqualify [Petitioner’s Declarant] for making and using a false writing.” PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s Declarant falsely claimed that certain patent applications were patents by listing them under the heading “Patents” in his Resume. Id. at 8–9. A Patent Owner Response is not the proper vehicle to seek to exclude testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Moreover, even if it were the proper vehicle, we are not persuaded that the alleged “falsehood” that Patent Owner identified—listing patent applications, which are clearly identified as such, under a heading titled “Patents”—is, in any way, misleading. Thus, we decline Patent Owner’s request that we dismiss Dr. Vishwanath’s testimony.3 C. Motion to Amend As discussed above, in the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner requests” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“i. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Neither party puts forward a succinct definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s declarant, however, has put forward a detailed discussion of various references dated before April 20064 (the date Patent Owner now alleges is the priority date) related to subject matter of the ’990 patent. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–74, 94–99. We have reviewed that discussion and the references cited in those paragraphs. We have found it accurately reflects the teachings of the references. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner’s declarant that the references are analogous to the claimed invention, and, as such, represent the level of skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill was best determined by the references of record); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91(CCPA 1978) (“[T]he PTO usually must evaluate . . . the level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature.”); see 4 We accept this date as the priority date only for the sake of argument. also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”’).” slip op. at 13
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner and find, based on the Patent Owner’s own arguments, that these terms improperly broaden the scope of the claims. As Patent Owner explains, the added language is broad enough to include the removed items, and is intended to reflect the entire genus of “monitoring equipment” and “communications devices” that “are capable of communication and capable of receiving signals.” Mot. to Amend 4, 5. Thus, the claim has been broadened to not only include the listed species that have been removed, but anything falling within the claimed genus. Accordingly, we find that this amendment impermissibly broadens the claim. As for the second change in the claim language, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show why removal of the entire passage “wherein, the communication device receives a signal via any of one or more products listed in any of the plurality of product grouping categories,” would not impermissibly broaden the scope of claim 154. The deletion of this limitation necessarily broadens the claim in that limitation’s aspect. See In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“For example, a reissue claim that deletes a limitation or element from the patent claims is broader in that limitation’s aspect.”). Given that Patent Owner has entirely deleted this limitation and Patent Owner bears the burden of showing entitlement to the amendment, it was incumbent on Patent Owner to explain why removing this entire passage from claim 154 would not broaden the scope of the claim. See In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“[A] claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.”).” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation - PTAB · Oct 28, 2014 · IPR2013-00266 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision
The Board denied entry of substitute claims 20–26 as obvious, and granted cancellation of challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 19.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“1. the cleavable linker and the protecting group are cleavable under identical conditions Proposed substitute claim 20 recites, inter alia, “a base that is linked to a detectable label via a cleavable linker,” a “protecting group attached via the 3' oxygen atom” of the nucleotide, and a step of “removing the label and the protecting group of the nucleotide . . . under a single set of chemical cleavage conditions.” Mot. 2 (emphasis added). These limitations are similar to those present in original claim 1, which we construed in our Decision on Institution. Specifically, we construed removal of the label and the protecting group under a single set of conditions “to mean what its plain language indicates: removal of the label and the protecting group under a single set of conditions.” Dec. 6. Neither of the parties contested this construction subsequent to institution, and we discern no reason to modify our initial construction for the purposes of this decision. Proposed claim 20 also requires that the cleavable linker comprise a disulfide linkage, but does not specify the protecting group. Thus, “a single set of chemical cleavage conditions,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, limits the structure of the protecting group to one which can be cleaved under the same conditions as a disulfide linkage, but does not require a specific structure, such as a disulfide linkage.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner
“Illumina was essentially 100%. This is a significant and unexpected improvement over the disulfide cleavages of Ruby (~86%) and Herman (87%).” Ex. 2004 ¶ 84. There is no testimony, however, that the stated results were due to the claimed nucleotide rather than the reducing agent. While Dr. Romesberg refers to the “disulfide cleavage yield” as being unexpected, he does not testify that this yield was attributable to the claimed nucleotide configuration, rather than the reducing agent which performs the disulfide bond cleavage. Illumina has not distinguished the Vermaas results from the prior art by showing that the nucleotide is responsible for the disulfide yield, rather than it being a property of the disulfide bond and the yield being “the mere recognition” of the bond’s “latent properties,” which “does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” Baxter, 952 F.2d at 392; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Absent such evidence, Illumina has not shown that the claimed subject matter possesses “unexpected results relative to the prior art.” Galderma Labs., LP v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“After considering all the evidence as a whole, we conclude that Illumina has not met its burden in showing that the proposed substitute claims are patentable over the prior art considered in this Decision. The Motion to Amend is DENIED to the extent that it requests entry of substitute claims 20–26.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,158,346 - PTAB · Aug 29, 2014 · IPR2013-00178 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–20 and denied substitution of claims 21–30 because the proposed claims lacked written-description support and were not shown patentable over prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“2. Written Description Support Patent Owner bears the burden to show written description support in the original disclosure for each proposed substitute claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The test for written description support is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “different reactor configurations and catalysts” used in Jakkula “could and would lead to differing optimal temperatures from those reported in Craig.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 36 (emphasis added). For example, Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that reduced temperatures, as well as dilution—which was used in Jakkula but was not studied as an operating variable in Craig—could “greatly reduce the rate of dimerization and oligomerization of free fatty acids” and would lead to lower levels of high molecular weight hydrocarbons. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 42, 60, 90; Ex. 1013, 4:11–13. Dr. Sughrue also provides evidence that in the years after the publication of Craig “the activity of hydroprocessing catalysts increased dramatically,” permitting lower reaction temperatures in the HDO step. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. In light of these differences, Dr. Sughrue concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have been dissuaded from considering HDO reaction temperatures at or near the low end of the preferred temperature range taught in [Jakkula], e.g., 300 °C, or even lower temperatures within the more broadly taught range of 200-500 °C.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 37. We find Dr. Sughrue’s testimony persuasive. In particular, in light of Jakkula’s disclosed successful results, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed Craig’s 350 °C minimum temperature for “trouble-free operation” as a line not to be crossed, but would have understood that the optimal and minimum temperatures for the HDO step would vary depending on the particular reactor configuration and operating conditions used. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“Discovery of an optimum value of a results effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art.”). Although Dr. Klein presents an opposing view from that of Dr. Sughrue, upon review of both expert declarations and their corresponding depositions, on balance, we find that Dr. Sughrue’s testimony more persuasively considers not only the express teachings of Craig and Jakkula, but also the timing of the two disclosures, the differences in reactor configuration and operating conditions, and the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“What a reference teaches or suggests must be examined in the context of the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled artisan.”)” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “different reactor configurations and catalysts” used in Jakkula “could and would lead to differing optimal temperatures from those reported in Craig.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 36 (emphasis added). For example, Dr. Sughrue testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that reduced temperatures, as well as dilution—which was used in Jakkula but was not studied as an operating variable in Craig—could “greatly reduce the rate of dimerization and oligomerization of free fatty acids” and would lead to lower levels of high molecular weight hydrocarbons. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 42, 60, 90; Ex. 1013, 4:11–13. Dr. Sughrue also provides evidence that in the years after the publication of Craig “the activity of hydroprocessing catalysts increased dramatically,” permitting lower reaction temperatures in the HDO step. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. In light of these differences, Dr. Sughrue concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have been dissuaded from considering HDO reaction temperatures at or near the low end of the preferred temperature range taught in [Jakkula], e.g., 300 °C, or even lower temperatures within the more broadly taught range of 200-500 °C.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 37. We find Dr. Sughrue’s testimony persuasive. In particular, in light of Jakkula’s disclosed successful results, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have viewed Craig’s 350 °C minimum temperature for “trouble-free operation” as a line not to be crossed, but would have understood that the optimal and minimum temperatures for the HDO step would vary depending on the particular reactor configuration and operating conditions used. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“Discovery of an optimum value of a results effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art.”). Although Dr. Klein presents an opposing view from that of Dr. Sughrue, upon review of both expert declarations and their corresponding depositions, on balance, we find that Dr. Sughrue’s testimony more persuasively considers not only the express teachings of Craig and Jakkula, but also the timing of the two disclosures, the differences in reactor configuration and operating conditions, and the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“What a reference teaches or suggests must be examined in the context of the knowledge, skill, and reasoning ability of a skilled artisan.”)” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading a reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “[I]n weighing the suggestive power of each reference, [the Board] must consider the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). When two references do not use directly comparable techniques or operating conditions, the impact of an allegedly discrediting reference may be significantly reduced. See id. at 592. slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,212,094 - PTAB · Jul 25, 2014 · IPR2013-00128 · APJ Richard M Lebovitz · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–8 but denied entry of substitute claims 9–12 because Illumina did not show they were patentable over the prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“[l]abeling moieties are favorably in communication with or coupled to nucleotides via a linker of sufficient length to ensure that the presence of said labeling moieties on said nucleotides will not interfere with the action of a polymerase enzyme on said nucleotides.” Ex. 2015, p. 32, ll. 10-13. Rabani specifically mentions disulfide linkages as useful when a cleavable linker is desired: Linkages comprising disulfide bonds within their length have been developed to provide for cleavability24; reagents comprising such linkages are commercially available25 and have been used to modify nucleotides26 in a manner which may be conveniently reversed by treatment with mild reducing agents such as dithiothreitol. Id. at p. 32, ll. 29-33. Footnotes 24 and 26 of the above quoted passage cite to Ruby, S.W. et al. (1990), Methods in Enzymology, 181:97, which is Exhibit 2016. Id. at 49. Footnote 25 references “for example, from Pierce Chemical Co., [ ] of Rockford, IL., U.S.A.” Id. Rabani, therefore, would have given a skilled worker reason to have used a cleavable linker with a disulfide bond to ensure that the labeling moieties on the nucleotides will not interfere with the action of a polymerase enzyme during the synthesis reaction. Church IBS cited Church as evidence of the obviousness of using a disulfide linker in a sequencing reaction. Paper 53, 2. Church provides another example of the use of a disulfide linker to attach a label to base of a nucleotide, further establishing its conventionality at the time of the invention. Ex. 1031, 17:10-18, 68:12-21. Church describes a working example in which a label was attached to a nucleotide base using a disulfide linker and then cleaving it off with DTT. Id. at 86:6-30. slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsDecided for petitioner
“Secondly, the cleavage agents are different. The cleavage agent used in Ruby is DTT (Ex. 2016, 10, “Elution buffer” A and B) and in Herman, the cleavage agent is described as “a reducing agent such as DTT” (Ex. 2017, col. 7, ll. 47-48) with DTT being used in its example (id. at col. 10, ll. 47-54, col. 11, ll. 11-22; col. 12, ll. 3-8). Mr. Vermaas describes an experiment that utilized another cleavage agent, 2 mM tris- (hydroxymethyl)phosphine. Ex. 2028 ¶ 10. Illumina did not offer an explanation as to why the phosphine compound was used instead of DTT as used by both Ruby and Herman. Indeed, Church used DTT in a DNA sequencing reaction, similar to the sequencing carried out in the Vermaas experiments, providing an additional reason to have used DTT in Dr. Varmaas’s comparison to the prior art. Ex. 1031, Fig. 5; 68, ll. 12-13; 86, ll. 20-23. There is no testimony that the stated results were due to the claimed nucleotide rather than the reducing agent. Dr. Romesberg testified: “Therefore, the disulfide cleavage yield achieved by Illumina was essentially 100%. This is a significant and unexpected improvement over the disulfide cleavages of Ruby (~86%) and Herman (87%).” Ex. 2009 ¶ 74. Dr. Romesberg refers to the “disulfide cleavage yield” as being unexpected, but he did not testify that this yield was attributable to the claimed nucleotide configuration, rather than the reducing agent which performs the disulfide bond cleavage. Illumina has not distinguished the Vermaas results from the prior art by showing that the nucleotide is responsible for the disulfide yield, rather than it being a property of the disulfide bond and the yield being “the mere recognition” of the bond’s “latent properties,” which “does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” Baxter, 952 F.2d at 392; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Absent such evidence, Illumina has not shown that the claimed subject matter possesses “unexpected results relative to the prior art.” Galderma Labs., LP v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir, 2013).” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“Patent Owner bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested in the Motion to Amend. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Patent Owner, therefore, bears the burden of showing the patentability of the amended claims. Patent Owner must show that the conditions for novelty and non- obviousness are met for the prior art available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, not just the prior art cited in the Petition. See Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR 2012-00027, slip op. at 7 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26). Also, a motion to amend “must include a claim listing, show the changes clearly, and set forth: (1) The support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1).” slip op. at 6
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“characterizations of Figure 6 from Ex. 1031, and all arguments based on it be excluded as evidence from this inter partes review. Illumina argues that the Figure should be excluded “because it includes poor quality black and white reproductions of images that do not accurately reflect the original underlying data.” Paper 70, 1. We agreed with Illumina that the figure of Church is of poor quality and gave it no weight. We, therefore, did not rely on Figure 6 of Church in reaching our decision. Accordingly, Illumina’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 29
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,057,026
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.