• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2026 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–5 are unpatentable; claims 1 and 2 are not shown unpatentable. Claims 3 and 4 are obvious over the applied grounds under the remand construction of “movement vector.”

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “was incorrect, vacated the Final Written Decision as to claims 3 and 4, and remanded the case to the Board to determine the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” and decide the outcome for claims 3 and 4 in accordance with that meaning. Atos, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2025 WL 1482404, at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025); Paper 35 (“Federal Circuit Remand,” “Remand,” or “Fed. Cir. Remand”). Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s instructions, the Board authorized the” slip op. at 3

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

    “considered individually and together, have well-understood, common meanings to ordinarily skilled artisans as of the invention date, reflected by the ’174 patent’s specification and other evidence of record noted above. Accordingly, we determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of “movement vector” is “a vector indicating movement of an object.” 3) “operation indicator” Petitioner” slip op. at 20

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

    “Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s explanation that angular momentum is not inherent to an object, and its computation requires an arbitrary choice of a point of origin that has no physical meaning in the context of vehicle motion, also supports Patent Owner’s position. Id. ¶ 71 (citing Ex. 2004, 262). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s argument, that angular momentum cannot be used to detect a vehicle turning, is persuasive. Id. We also find persuasive, as Dr. Kanellakopoulos explains, that Petitioner’s argument regarding the figure on Kleppner 234 is based on misinterpretation of the vectors in that figure. Id. ¶ 67 (explaining that Kleppner 233–234 does not depict a gravity vector).” slip op. at 35

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

    “Kleppner does not disclose a rotation vector, a person of ordinary skill would have used the knowledge of a rotation vector (because it is a term of art) alongside Kleppner’s teaching, to arrive at claim 1. See Pet. Reply 11. This argument does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner does not explain which teaching of Kleppner a person of ordinary skill would have selected and combined with their knowledge of a rotation vector to yield the method of claim 1, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have recognized based on Kleppner that estimating the angle between a rotation vector and gravity vector could be used to detect a vehicle turning. Nor does Petitioner respond to Patent Owner’s assertion that Kleppner provides no rationale for estimating an angle of alignment between a rotation vector and gravity vector as a way of detecting a vehicle turning. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 65.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,846,174
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11–14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed capacity retention after 400 cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. 9 The parties here do not address objective evidence of nonobviousness. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. PO Resp. 20. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’641 patent, the prior art of record, and the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The parties agree that the term “charge cut-off voltage” is “the maximum voltage to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp 21–22; Pet. Reply 1. The parties dispute, however, whether the “charge cut-off voltage” is a “battery property” or “the voltage applied to the battery during charging.” PO Resp. 21–24; Pet. Reply 1–6. We need not resolve the precise meaning of “charge cut-off voltage” because there is no dispute that Yamaki discloses this limitation under either party’s interpretation of the claim term. Upon review of the prior art and the parties’ arguments, we determine that no terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))); Pet. Reply 1 (asserting that the challenged claims are unpatentable under either parties’ construction of “charge cut-off voltage”).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position. Sakamoto expressly discloses setting the ratio of negative to positive electrode active material in the range of 1.05 to 1.30. Ex. 1005 ¶ 8. Sakamoto also explains why this range is preferable, i.e., if the ratio is roughly equal “the charge-discharge cycle performance is insufficient due to significant deterioration from charging and discharging,” and if the ratio is 10 Citations to the prosecution history of Yamaki are to the page numbers added to the lower right corner of the document. too high “too much of the compound does not participate in charging and discharging.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. These disclosures are sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the ratios disclosed in Sakamoto in Yamaki. Id. ¶ 8 (providing a secondary battery with a capacity ratio between 1.05 and 1.30 and noting that by setting the ratio within this range the resulting secondary lithium battery is “safe due to low risk of heat being generated and an explosion occurring”). We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We also disagree that Sakamoto teaches away from elevated voltages or from increasing the amount of lithium in circulation. See PO Resp. 29. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Sakamoto provides no general teaching against using a charge cut-off voltage above 4.2 V, or against increasing the level of lithium in circulation. Nor does Sakamoto “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, Sakamoto warns against setting the reversible capacities of the positive and negative electrode substantially equal as this may result in excess lithium plating on the surface of the electrode. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6, 8. We agree with Petitioner that this disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery with a higher capacity in the negative electrode active material than the positive electrode active material. Pet. 11–12.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00605 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable over Gravesen and Brister; claims 7, 11, and 18–28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The person of ordinary skill in the art as of the earliest possible effective filing date (“POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or a related subject, and one or more years of experience researching, developing and/or designing insertable medical devices, including, e.g., systems for implanting wearable medical devices such as cannulas, infusion sets, and analyte sensors, or equivalent experience. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s Degree, and vice versa. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 11 n.1. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

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

    “On the full trial record, we again find that Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing is unwarranted. First, the intrinsic record does not support Patent Owner’s required “central” axis. Patent Owner argues that the Specification describes two inserter embodiments as having “rotors,” and those rotors have a central axis. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:25–28, 29:55–59, Figs. 32, 45). Patent Owner, however, fails to explain why those embodiments should be understood to limit the claims. For example, in Phillips, the Federal Circuit “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). Second, turning to the extrinsic evidence of record, Dr. Fletcher points to a general dictionary definition indicating that a rotor is simply a “rotating member.” Ex. 1003 (Fletcher Decl.) ¶ 81 (citing Ex. 1025 (dictionary excerpts), 1). In contrast, Dr. Cima provides no evidence corroborating his evidence. The language Patent Owner quotes from the Petition comes from a “Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering.” See Pet. 38 n.9 (quoting Ex. 1024, 328). This contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s proposed construction “has no basis in mechanical engineering.” PO Resp. 19. view that a rotor must rotate on a central axis. He cites a textbook indicating that “[r]otational motion needs to take place around an appropriate axis,” but he does not explain whether or why the “appropriate axis” must necessarily be a “central axis.” Ex. 2024 (Cima Decl.) ¶ 179 (quoting Ex. 2040 (Rotordynamics) 2 (emphasis added)). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the Petition does state that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of a ‘recess’ to include ‘an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room),’” the Petition does not specify what else is “include[d]” in this term, nor does it specify that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire interior of a housing. The Petition also does not invoke the Specification as demonstrating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “recess” includes the entire housing.13 Pet. 64 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s belated proposal also conflicts with the language of the claims themselves. Independent claim 1 recites “a rotor disposed within the inserter housing.” Ex. 1001, 43:42. Dependent claim 7 narrows claim 1 by reciting that “the housing comprises a recess in which the rotor is received.” Id. at 44:11–12. If the interior of the inserter housing and the recess could be one and the same as Petitioner proposes, there would be no need for claim 7, because it would not further limit claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (“a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed”); see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The concept of claim differentiation ‘normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.’”) (quoting Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we decline Petitioner’s belated request to construe “recess” to include “an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder.” 13 We acknowledge that Petitioner argued that the entire interior of Gravesen’s housing maps to the claimed “recess,” but this was in the context of comparing the prior art to the claim as construed. Indeed, Petitioner asserted that “the space within [Gravesen’s] housing is an alcove.” Pet. 64– 65 (emphasis added). In sum, Petitioner did not timely argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “recess” includes an entire cavity of a housing or a cylinder. We adopt the only construction Petitioner offered and supported in the Petition. In view of the above, we construe “recess” as meaning “an indentation in a line or surface (as an alcove in a room).”” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,945,649 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,649
• Pelican Biothermal, LLC v. Va-Q-Tec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 16, 2023 · PGR2021-00085 · APJ Barry L Grossman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board granted the motion to amend but held amended claim 64 unpatentable as anticipated by NanoCool 98596-type products and obvious over the cited combinations; all other amended claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that amended claim 64 is unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Non-Contingent Motion to Amend is granted for claims 64 and denied for all other amended claims; and” slip op. at 77

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “A. Status as Prior Art Is a Substantive Issue, Not an Evidentiary Issue. A motion to exclude is not an appropriate mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence, such as whether a reference qualifies as prior art, or the proper weight that should be afforded an argument. See Flir Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 113, 4, 8–9 (PTAB September 3, 2015); PTAB Consol. Trial Practice Guide 79 (Nov. 30 Mr. Zumwalt testifies that other NanoCool products, designated by product number 85430 and 98630, also have the same configuration as the 98830 product and are made by the same process. Thus, “the 98830, 85430, and 98630 products can be collectively referred to as ‘98830-type’ products all having the same relevant design.” Ex. 1030 ¶ 17. 2019) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact. A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence—arguments regarding weight should appear only in the merits documents.”); Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., IPR2017-02187, Paper 42,17 (PTAB May 21, 2019) (status as prior art “is a substantive issue, not an evidentiary issue.”) Thus, whether the NanoCool 98830 product is prior art is not the proper basis for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude evidence concerning the NanoCool 98830 product.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Harber provide any analysis of the factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill, identified above, to support their conclusory statements. We give Mr. Harber’s conclusory testimony minimal probative weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence to which we have been directed of the need for specific education or experience in biological or chemical technologies related to the claimed containers and inserts.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and at least two to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [insulated shipping containers] depending on education level.” Pet. 9 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Exhibit 1002 is the Declaration testimony of Mr. Paul Haber. Mr. Harber actually states a slightly different level of ordinary skill. Mr. Harber testifies: The hypothetical POSITA would have: (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in biological, chemical or mechanical engineering, or related sciences, and have at least three to five years of experience in designing and testing ISCs [Insulated Shipping Containers][29]. Such a person may also have (ii) a higher level degree, such as a PhD and/or Master’s degree in engineering, or related sciences, and have at least two to three years of experience in designing and testing ISCs. 29 See Ex. 1002 ¶ 23. Ex. 1002 ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Mr. Harber also testifies that “[t]hese descriptions are approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,766,685 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,766,685
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00098 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable because the driver was not shown configured to receive the rectifier’s forward voltages.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had experience in LED devices. For this reason, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Upon review of the entire record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Ducharme’s testimony that “the spacing of the chips in Zhang would not likely be so close as to create overheating issues” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 111) is unsupported by any disclosure of the actual spacing of Zhang’s chips. Consequently, his testimony that there would be no overheating concerns in Zhang due to the spacing of the chips is entitled to little, if any, weight. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that the components of Zhang’s driver “could easily increase the temperature of the LED 19 chips on the circuit board, which can cause LEDs to generate less illumination, burn out and otherwise adversely affect their performance.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 126. Dr. Ducharme further testifies that “[i]t is well-known that excessive operational temperatures can reduce the illumination provided by the LEDs, can decrease the operational lifetime of the LEDs, and if the temperature is sufficiently high, it can cause LED junction failure and a burnt-out LED.” Id. We agree with this testimony, which as discussed below, is consistent with Salam. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony concerning overheating issues caused by the driver components contradicts Patent Owner’s ’s contention that there would not be “an overheating issue with Zhang’s LED exit sign circuit in Figure 2.1.” PO Resp. 30. Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106). Patent Owner next contends it would be extremely burdensome and costly to modify Zhang to add a heat sink layer because “each of the multiple chips mounted and epoxied to Zhang’s circuit board in the exit sign would have to be modified.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 112). Dr. Ducharme’s testimony repeats the Patent Owner Response verbatim and is entitled to little, if any, weight. Ex. 2002 ¶ 112. Nonetheless, this contention is unavailing because it is based on Patent Owner’s bodily incorporation of Zhang and Salam. Patent Owner next contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Regardless of whether Zhang’s LEDs in Figure 2.1 have a heat problem or not, Salam teaches the advantages of using a heat sink. Salam teaches that a heat sink will result in a higher efficiency of the LEDs and improved life. Ex. 1006, 16:38–43. The Federal Circuit, in DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal–and even common-sensical . . . the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses the knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” Id. at 1368. Dr. Ducharme testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have an understanding of the generation of heat and using a heat sink to remove unwanted heat from electronics and LED lighting devices.” Ex. 1102, 23:18–24:3. Dr. Ducharme’s testimony is consistent with Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Zhang and Salam “would have been a straightforward combination of known components and technologies, according to known methods, to produce the predictable result of reducing/ mitigating heat effects in a circuit.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 106).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00023 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4 are unpatentable over the stated § 103 combinations; Petitioner did not show claim 2 unpatentable because it did not explain how the LED array’s forward voltage is received by the driver.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of experience in the field of design and/or development of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and circuits in the context of lighting control systems.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 34). Petitioner further contends that “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner proposes the same level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 6. We apply the parties’ undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the level of skill reflected in the ’149 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Dr. Lebby’s testimony over Dr. Ducharme for the following reasons. First, in Deese, power cable 28 is inserted into an opening in rubber housing 21. Ex. 1008, Fig. 2A. [R]ubber housing 21 forms a water-tight seal around the power cable 28.” Id. at 4:63–65. Dr. Ducharme does not explain why Hochstein’s protruding heat sink shell could not similarly be inserted through rubber housing 21 with a water-tight seal. Further, Dr. Lebby relies on the similarity between the structures of Deese and Hochstein. Hochstein uses gasket 45 and weather seal 48 to seal housing 10 with electrical lead 49 and heat sink shell 38 extending therethrough. Ex. 1010, 5: 39–40, 5:63:65, Fig. 8.” slip op. at 47

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

    “Our analysis starts with the claim language. Claim 1 recites “a driver, wherein the driver includes at least one transistor and at least one capacitor” and “the driver is configured to receive an AC voltage from a mains power source and provide a voltage and current to the at least one LED circuit.” Ex. 1001, 23:16–17, 26:22–24. Dr. Ducharme testifies that power is determined by multiplying voltage and current. Ex. 2008 ¶ 63. The language of claim 1, thus, supports Patent Owner’s construction which is also consistent with the dictionary definition offered by Petitioner which also defines “driver” as [a] program, circuit or device used to power or control other programs, circuits or devices.” Ex. 1007, 4 (emphasis added). The Specification provides “the driver providing an AC voltage and current to one or more LED circuits.” Ex. 1001, 3:65–67. Thus, the Specification also provides support for Patent Owner’s construction. For the foregoing reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “driver” because it is consistent with the language of claim 1 and the description of driver in the Specification. We note that the adjective “LED” prior to circuits or devices in Patent Owner’s construction is not necessary because that it essentially repeats limitation 1.e.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We begin with the claim language itself which is “the package is a heat sinking reflective material.” Ex. 1001, 23:18–19 (emphasis added). In its analysis, Patent Owner parses “heat sinking reflective material” out of context by omitting the italicized language “the package is” preceding “heat sinking reflective material.” PO Resp. 29. The deposition testimony of Dr. Lebby and Dr. Ducharme’s declaration testimony cited by Patent Owner are also out of context. The Specification of the ’149 patent defines “package” as an integrated unit that “in certain applications may preferably include a heat sink, a reflective material, a lens for directing light, phosphor nano-crystals or light changing or enhancing substances.” Ex. 1001, 5:30–33. Because heat sink and reflective material are listed separately in the Specification, this disclosure suggests that, at least in certain embodiments, a package with a heat sink separate from a reflective material would fall within the scope of limitation 1.c. This is further confirmed by comparing the packages illustrated in Figures 25 and 26 of the ’149 patent which are reproduced above. Figure 25 is described as illustrating “heat sinking material 198 . . . integrated into the package 30.” Id. at 17:34–35. Figure 26 is described as illustrating reflector 202 “integrated into the package 30 for optimized light dispersion.” Id. at 17:47–49. As can be seen from a visual comparison of Figures 25 and 26, reflector 202 is separate from heat sinking material 198. Given the disclosure in the ’149 patent of a package with a heat sink” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,149 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,149
• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01209 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, and 9–25 are unpatentable; claims 5, 7, and 8 are not shown unpatentable, based on anticipation by Kim and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, we interpret claims under the same standard” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, Petitioner fails to establish that Kim discloses “determining that the individual is a driver of the vehicle based at least in part on acceleration, forces, velocity, the at least one location point, and time.”” slip op. at 46

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “nexus and therefore fails to establish that any alleged evidence of objective indicia supports a finding of non-obviousness. Accordingly, we give Patent Owner’s reliance on objective indicia of non-obviousness no weight in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 9,152,609 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,152,609
• Renesas Electronics Corporation / Renesas Electronics America, Inc. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2019 · IPR2017-01869 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Igarashi and Tanaka (1999); claims 2 and 7 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a POSA provided by Dr. Bottoms. Dec. 10–11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). Dr. Bottoms provides a “clarification” of the Board’s description, testifying that “[t]he specific industry experience would require process design experience—which is experience beyond managing fabrication equipment.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 36. Dr. Bottoms’ clarification is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’330 patent, which discloses process design options for making a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop. Ex. 1001, 5:66-6:24. Dr. Neikirk testifies that, under Dr. Bottoms’ definition, a POSA has a higher degree of skill than under Dr. Neikirk’s definition, and the Board’s adoption of Dr. Bottoms’ definition would not change his opinions regarding obviousness. Ex. 1028 ¶ 14. We find there is little difference between the declarants’ definitions of a POSA, and the outcome of our patentability determinations would be the same, regardless of which definition we accept. For the sake of clarity, we adopt Dr. Bottoms’ definition of a POSA, including the recent clarification. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 35, 36. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “After reviewing the qualifications of Dr. Neikirk and Dr. Bottoms, as set forth in each witness’s declaration and curriculum vitae, we find that each of these declarants has sufficient education and experience related to the subject matter of the ’330 patent to testify regarding the perspective of a POSA at the time of the invention. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 1012; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 8–20. See Trial Practice Guide Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP (“TPG Update”), 3 (“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’” (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). D.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that it was not necessary to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. Dec. 9–10. Neither party challenges that determination. Petitioner contends that the asserted grounds of unpatentability apply under either party’s construction for the phrase “etch stop layer of silicon nitride.” Pet. 25 n.3. Patent Owner argues that this phrase is not limited to a layer of pure silicon nitride and allows for the presence of dopants and/or impurities. PO Resp. 8–10. Patent Owner does not, however, rely on its proposed claim construction for any patentability argument. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that the silicon nitride materials disclosed in the Low-K References satisfy Patent Owner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 10. Under these circumstances, we agree with Petitioner that we do not need to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. Pet. Reply 2. Accordingly, consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that we do not need to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of resolving the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). B.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “copper interconnects need silicon nitride films as an etch stop, but that such films have a high dielectric constant, which causes an undesirable increase in the effective dielectric constant of the interconnect structure and increased parasitic capacitance, as compared with aluminum interconnects. Ex. 1021, 829-1, 829-2; see Pet. 18; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 92, 93. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 53–54), Tanaka (1999) cites Igarashi as an example of a copper interconnect system that is degraded by parasitic capacitance due to the high permittivity (dielectric constant) of silicon nitride etch stop films. Ex. 1017, 47-1 n.1. Tanaka (1999) discloses a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film as a solution to the problem of parasitic capacitance in copper damascene interconnect structures, such as Igarashi’s. Id. at 47-1, 47-2 (“New low-k SiN film, with a permittivity of 5.4 . . . should be the solution to realize Cu damascene interconnects . . . .”). Consistent with these express disclosures, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that “Igarashi identifies a need for a low-k dielectric etch stop layer” and “Tanaka (1999) meets this need.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 94; see Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1011, § VIII.C., which contains paragraph 94 of Dr. Neikirk’s testimony). Accordingly, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA would have been motivated to use the low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film of Tanaka (1999) as the etch stop layer in the interconnect system of Igarashi. Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has established a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Tanaka (1999)’s low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film and Igarashi’s interconnect structure. PO Resp. 65. Although the Petition does not expressly discuss whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Tanaka and Igarashi to arrive at the claimed invention, Petitioner shows a very close relationship between the teachings of Tanaka (1999) and Igarashi. Pet. 12–13, 17–18, 53–62. As discussed above and argued by Petitioner, Tanaka (1999): (1) cites Igarashi as an example of a copper interconnect system that suffers from parasitic capacitance due to the high dielectric constant of silicon nitride etch stop films, and (2) discloses a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film as a solution to the parasitic capacitance problem exemplified by Igarashi. Pet. 13, 18, 53–54; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 74–79, 88–94; Ex. 1017, 47-1 & n.1; Ex. 1021, 829-1, 829-2. Petitioner establishes a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Tanaka (1999) and Igarashi by demonstrating a strong correlation between the problem discussed by Igarashi—the high dielectric constant of silicon nitride films when used as etch stops for copper interconnects—and the solution disclosed by Tanaka (1999)—a low dielectric constant silicon nitride film for use as an etch stop layer in copper damascene interconnect structures. In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he strength of the correlation between the references gives rise to a reasonable expectation of success from combining them.”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,388,330 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,388,330
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Waveform Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 were held unpatentable as obvious over Hagiwara; claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “j. Conclusion Regarding Obviousness Based on Hagiwara (Proposed Substitute Claims) We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. We conclude that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 21, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. 2. Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability Asserted by Petitioner (Proposed Substitute Claims) In view of our determination that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara, we do not reach Petitioner’s remaining grounds of unpatentability as to these claims. Regarding proposed substitute claims 24 and 25, Petitioner’s contentions regarding the Handbook, Wilson, and Say do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s contentions regarding Hagiwara, as discussed above. Accordingly, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that proposed substitute claims 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious based on Hagiwara in view of the Handbook, Wilson, or Say. H.” slip op. at 71

  • ExcludeOther

    “As discussed above, we do not reach the Wilson-Based Grounds with respect to claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 of the ’574 patent. As for claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, we determine that Petitioner has not shown unpatentability based on the Wilson-Based Grounds, even if Exhibit 1037 and the corresponding portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37) are not excluded, because Petitioner does not offer Exhibit 1037 to cure the deficiency we noted in Wilson. See Section II.F, supra. For this reason, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion.” slip op. at 72

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sensor would not have been a motivation to combine Hagiwara’s embodiments” because Hagiwara’s catheter prevents damage to the sensor during insertion and because a sensor with a side sensor window creates a greater risk of damage and vascular injury and reduces exposure to blood, as compared with a sensor with an end sensor window. PO Resp. 20–25. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a motivation to combine, notwithstanding the conflicting expert testimony regarding the disadvantages of a side sensor window versus an end sensor window. Neither of the expert opinions on this topic is supported by objective facts or data. Ex. 1006 ¶ 155;13 Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 54–57, 87–95; Ex. 2009, 92:8–97:12. For this reason, we give little or no weight to either side’s expert testimony 13 Dr. Vachon cites “WO 01/13102, Vadgama” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 155), however, this reference was not submitted as an exhibit in this proceeding. on this topic. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness). As discussed above, however, there is no disagreement that a side sensor window was a known alternative to an end sensor window. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73, 155; Tr. 43:22–44:3. That undisputed fact, together with Petitioner’s other evidence, is sufficient to establish a motivation to combine.” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) provided by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Vachon. Dec. 11 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 28). That definition is: a person having a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field and at least three years of experience relating to biosensor research and development, or a master’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field, and at least one year of experience relating to biosensor research and development. Id. Patent (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_on_motions_ to_amend_11_2017.pdf); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Iancu, Order on Petition for Panel Rehearing, No. 2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2018). Owner’s declarant accepts and applies this definition of a POSITA for purposes of his opinions. Ex. 2008 ¶ 30. Neither party’s declarant indicates that any proffered opinion would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, consistent with our Institution Decision, we adopt Dr. Vachon’s definition of a POSITA. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,574 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,574
• Alere Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LPSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01502 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by MacKay; claims 3–5 were not shown unpatentable over MacKay and Cipkowski.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, a preamble may be limiting when the disputed preamble phrase provides antecedent basis for a claim term in the body of a claim, the specification underscores that the additional structure recited in the preamble is important, or when the patentee clearly relied upon the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 808–09. “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention,’” id. at 808, or where the patentee uses the preamble to give “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim,” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). The term “device” is not recited in the body of any claim of the ’019 patent,4 the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention, and the preamble phrase “device for collecting and assaying a sample of biological fluid” specifies the intended use of the invention. Thus, we find the claims of the ’019 patent do not support construing “device” as a limitation. See Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “device” set forth above requires a single, unitary structure rather than a collection of separate structures that could be used during the test. See id. at 18 (concluding without analysis that the dictionary definition requires a “single, unitary structure”). Indeed, despite the ubiquitous use of the term “device” in patents generally, we are directed to no case in which the term “device,” by itself, was found to require a single, unitary structure. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 2106, I (identifying “devices” as one of the four categories of statutory subject matter); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 565 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (O’Malley concurring in part) (confirming that, in general, the term “device” is generic). Thus, we are not persuaded that the ordinary meaning of the term “device” requires a “single, unitary structure.” See Ex. 1023 ¶ 66 (Dr. Bohannon testifying that the word device, like the words “apparatus” or “system,” is merely a generic term that does not have a specialized meaning in the art and does not require a single, unitary structure). slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We do not find this argument persuasive. As noted above, we do not construe claim 1 to contain a method step of adding fluid to the container. We construe the first wherein clause of claim 1(c), instead, to require a structure that is capable of allowing liquid to enter the container when the flow control channel is properly disposed therein and is capable of directing this liquid to the sample loading zone of the assay test strip without the liquid having to migrate through an intermediate structure, such as a wicking material. We are persuaded—and Patent Owner does not dispute—that the apparatus of MacKay, as disclosed in Figures 8A–C, has a structure that is capable of achieving both functions. See, e.g., Tr. 26:10–30:20. First, given the open nature of the container, it is evident that liquid may be added to the container when the flow control channel is disposed within the container, and Patent Owner does not assert otherwise. See, e.g., id. Second, even if the fluid present in Figures 8A–C is considered, there is no intermediate structure in the container of MacKay that would prevent additional assay sample fluid from entering the container and being immediately directed to the sample loading zone of the assay test strips.6 Based on the foregoing, we find that MacKay discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’019 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is anticipated by MacKay.” slip op. at 21

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

    “discloses the subject matter of claims 3–5 of the ’019 patent. Pet. 26–30. Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to insert the test trip and flow control channel of MacKay in the holder of Cipkowski, in order to prevent “flooding of the test strip as taught in MacKay.” Id. at 29.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,548,019 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,548,019

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.