• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01383 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not sufficiently establish a reason to modify the asserted prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s argument because it fails to address Dr. Schubert’s academic and other experience with GaN transistors. Dr. Schubert is currently a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical Computer, and Systems Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and was previously a tenured full professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University. Ex. 2001, 129. Additionally, Dr. Schubert was the director of Boston University’s Semiconductor Devices Research Laboratory. Ex. 2001, 129. Dr. Schubert persuasively explains that his general expertise is in the field of electrical engineering and applied physics, including semiconductors, processing, and devices and his specific expertise is in the field of semiconductor materials (such as GaN), semiconductor devices, semiconductor integrated circuits, ohmic contacts, Schottky contacts, HEMTs, and optoelectronic devices such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A pp.129–137. His experience includes “the design, growth, fabrication, and testing of semiconductor devices as well as the employment of these devices in a variety of applications” and he is “familiar with both the design of such transistors [HEMTs] and the manufacturing processes used for FETs. Ex. 2001 ¶ 11, App’x A, pp. 129–137. He is an author or co-author of numerous text books and articles, and co-inventor of numerous patents, including those dealing with HEMT transistors and GaN devices. Ex. 2001 ¶ 13, App’x A, pp. 129–137. Petitioner fails to present any persuasive argument or evidence that Dr. Schubert’s extensive education and experience regarding GaN transistors is insufficient or lacking such that his testimony should be given little weight. Finally, we disagree with Petitioner’s additional argument that that its expert’s testimony (Dr. Shealy) should be given more weight than Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony (Dr. Schubert) because “[u]nlike Dr. Schubert, Dr. Shealy is one of the pioneer scientists in the field of GaN transistors.” Reply 34 (stating that Dr. Shealy’s research lab built the first GaN HEMT device on silicon in 1999 and citing Ex. 2002, 87:19–238). Obviousness is determined through the lens of a “person of ordinary skill in the art,” not through the lens of a person with extraordinary skill or a pioneer in the field. Given Dr. Schubert’s extensive relevant education and experience, Petitioner does not persuasively explain why Dr. Shealy’s testimony on any specific topic, or his testimony in general, should be given more weight than Dr. Schubert’s.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham, , 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or material science or a closely related field and at least two years of experience in semiconductor device design or fabrication, including the processing of semiconductor materials, analysis of device operation, or the development of new device topologies. Additional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 69). Patent Owner did not dispute this proposed definition prior to institution. See generally Prelim. Resp. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. After institution, Patent Owner asserted a slightly different definition of a POSITA, namely someone who “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, physics, material science, or a closely related field, and three years of professional work experience in the epitaxial growth, design, and fabrication of semiconductor electronic devices, including those of GaN.” Resp. 17. Relevant graduate education could substitute for the professional work experience. Id. Upon review of the full record, we see no reason to modify, and we thus maintain, the definition of a POSITA applied in our Decision on Institution. We also determine that our decision would be the same under either of the parties’ proposed definitions.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “During the proceeding, the parties also dispute the proper construction of “etching away the doped GaN layer, except a portion of the doped GaN layer beneath the gate contact” as recited in step [1e4] and provided briefing on this issue. Papers 35, 36, 37, 38. Because, as explained below, our determination rests upon Petitioner’s failure to show a sufficient reason to modify the asserted art, which is not dependent upon any particular claim construction, we need not, and do not, address these claim construction issues. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeDenied

    “III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXHIBIT 2008 Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 25, “Mot.”) Exhibit 2008, which is a hearing transcript from the parallel ITC investigation. Mot. 1. Because we do not rely upon Exhibit 2008 in our Decision, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 8,404,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,404,508
• Intel Corporation v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00991 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1 and 13–17 not unpatentable, finding the asserted obviousness grounds deficient in claim limitations or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties proposed definitions differ in that Petitioner would permit a degree in “materials science” and require three years, as opposed to two years, of relevant experience. Compare Pet. 9 with PO Resp. 14. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition, as it is more consistent with the prior art of record and the disclosures of the ’702 patent. We note, however, that neither party contends that the outcome of this case depends on the slight differences in the proposed definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate. Pet. 11–12. First, the plain language of the claim does not require merely a “layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells, but rather “a stackable add-on layer” having a plurality of vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells; that plurality is bonded to the dielectric layer. Ex. 1001, 12:29–32. A construction that gives meaning to all words of the claim is preferred. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “As discussed above, we do not understand a “stackable add-on layer” to include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. Pet. 16, 29 n.11, 51 (“In Lee, each level 3104 is deposited on the underlying level of array 3101.”). Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Analysis: Claims 14–17 Claims 14–17 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 13. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 13. Pet. 31–41. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14–17 would have been obvious over Lee.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Aspar would improve Lee, would solve a problem in Lee, and that Petitioner is proposing to use Aspar in a way that is not disclosed in the reference. PO Resp. 49–50 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 153–162); Tr. 57:24–58:12; Pet. 61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (asking whether a technique “would improve similar devices in the same way”), 420 (asking whether there was a known problem in the art), 421 (asking whether one of ordinary skill in the art had reason to “pursue the known options”); Intel, 61 F.4th at 1381 (explaining that obviousness may be demonstrated by showing that there was a known problem in the art (“cache coherency in multiprocessor systems”) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that that the prior art solution to this problem (“global segmented secondary cache”) would improve the system of another prior art reference). Petitioner does not persuasively show that there was any known problem in the art with respect to Lee or its monolithic method of constructing memory arrays. Nor does Petitioner provide persuasive argument or evidence that Aspar’s wafer bonding would improve Lee’s memory device.10 For example, Petitioner states in a conclusory fashion that Aspar would address the known problem of “fabricating 3D structures,” but does not explain what those problems were or why Lee fails to solve them. Pet. 61. Dr. Sechen’s testimony merely parrots the Petition, providing no further analysis or explanation of what problem might exist in Lee when fabricating its 3D structures. Ex. 1003 ¶ 212. The Petition notes that Aspar transfers “thin layers of very good thickness homogeneity and with a high crystalline quality,” but the Petition never asserts that Lee’s direct deposition method fails to provide these same or similar qualities. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00853 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted combinations lacked a persuasive basis for achieving the claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’725 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Patent Owner does not ask that this claim language be expressly construed or contest Petitioner’s proposed interpretation. See Resp. 11–15. Although it is not necessary for our final decision in this proceeding to construe this claim language because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability, as it is uncontested, we adopt as our own Petitioner’s proposed construction of “imaging device configured to acquire point by point image data from locations distributed throughout a volume of a crystalline lens.”” slip op. at 19

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

    “Turning to the disputed term “automatically” in this context, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain meaning of the term “automatically” is that the “control system” can, on its own and without human intervention, perform the subsequently recited step. Resp. 11–15; see also Pet. 10 (Petitioner agreeing this is the plain meaning). This is supported by the Specification, which states, inter alia, that “the entire system is controlled by the controller CPU” and describes alternative embodiments where (1) the system is fully in control and where (2) user input identifies targets. Ex. 1027, 12:23–25, 13:25–44, Figs. 14, 15. However, we also agree with Petitioner that just because the claimed “control system” is configured/programmed to perform (i.e., capable of performing) some tasks “automatically” (i.e., entirely on its own), this does not mean user input (e.g., from a surgeon) must be altogether excluded. Pet. 10–11. In fact, user input must be possible and is within the scope of the independent claim. “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.” Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Here claim 2, requiring automatic target identification, and claim 5, requiring user input on target identification, each depends from claim 1 and illuminates its scope, which must be broad enough to encompass both. Thus, although requiring (in claim 1) that a “control system” can perform certain recited functions, and that some are performed (according to claim 2) “automatically,” that same “control system” must also be capable of allowing a user input on the locations of targets for laser treatment (according to claim 5). Such optional user input required by dependent claim 5 is described in the Specification, which includes embodiments where a surgeon can adjust the size, location, and shape of the treatment pattern, can determine the optimal cutting contours in patients, and can provide “user input” to define targets or adjust computer-defined parameters as necessary. Ex. 1027, 10:55–45; 10:67–11:2, 13:25–55, 13:63–14:2. Regardless, the configuration of independent claim 1’s “control system,” which must be programmed to and capable of performing its own recited steps/functions, is not diminished by the requirements of either dependent claim. Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corporation, 831 F.3d 1350, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he language of a dependent claim cannot change the scope of an independent claim whose meaning is clear on its face.”).” slip op. at 22

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

    “generally. “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact,” and this “requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1366–67. Based on the record, we conclude that, even if it would have been potentially advantageous to in some way incorporate the use of Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging and measuring into Swinger’s system and method for cataract surgery (for example, to replace the use of ultrasound imaging with OCT), we agree with Patent Owner that, other than the (ultimately) conclusory testimony of its witness Dr. Izatt (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 110, 144, 151, 161, 163–165, 168), there is no persuasive evidence that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references with the result being a control system configured to (automatically or not in practice) image cataractous eye tissue, identify the targets therein (capsule and lens) to be cut with a laser, and then operate that laser to actually make those cuts based in some part on that imaging. See Resp. 15–34. We credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that, as of the invention, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have relieved the surgeon of responsibility for identifying cutting regions for laser capsulotomy and cataract surgery (as taught by Swinger), and relegated such task to a computer, which subsequently performs the procedure. Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 36–38, 42, 46, 62–66; see also Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 56–59, 68–71 (Dr. Walter testifying similarly). Dr. Kang takes issue with Petitioner’s positions that Baikoff and Li teach or suggest such reliance on a computer because, according to Dr. Kang, neither Baikoff nor Li (and indisputably not Swinger) teaches using a computer to identify laser cutting regions or to control laser surgery, and, in fact, they suggest reliance on a surgeon to interpret their OCT images to plan a subsequent surgery. See, e.g., Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 36–38, 42, 46, 62–66. We further credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that Petitioner fails to adequately explain, even were the ordinarily skilled artisan intent on combining Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging systems with Swinger’s cataract surgery system, how it would have been accomplished to overcome the “substantial challenges” and achieve the claimed invention. See id. ¶¶ 63– 66; see also Resp. 27–28 (addressing Petitioner’s lack of explanation as to how to implement the combination).19 We agree that, beyond merely suggesting plugging one system into another, Petitioner does not explain how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have programmed Swinger’s computer control system to use Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging systems and tissue recognition and measurement algorithms to determine capsulotomy cutting regions and then implement the planned cutting with a laser, even from a rudimentary perspective. See Pet. 35–40. Indeed, Petitioner concedes:” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,125,725 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,125,725
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00840 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 8–16, and 22–35 not unpatentable because the proposed combinations failed to establish the claimed control system and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’732 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party seeks an express interpretation of any claim language. Pet. 7–8; see generally Resp. Therefore, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language here. However, in our analysis below, as required for the sake of clarity, to resolve ambiguity, and for consistency with our decisions in the related proceedings addressing similar claim language and similar prior art, we address the claim language and its meaning as argued by the parties. We do so in accordance with the above-noted standards of law. C. slip op. at 20

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

    “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1367. The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention based solely on Swinger’s, Baikoff’s, and Li’s teachings. Further, as our reviewing court has explained, “references to ‘common sense’—” or an ordinarily skilled artisan’s ordinary creativity, “whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” DSS Tech. Mgm’t, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 855 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Although here Petitioner has not wholly omitted any reasoned analysis or evidence regarding the claimed computer control system programmed to automatically plan a cutting region based on image data and then perform that planned laser-cutting of the lens capsule (and, for some claims, also the lens), this subject matter is not disclosed in any cited art and we find Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning as to why it would have been obvious without such disclosure to be largely conclusory and unpersuasive. slip op. at 44

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be merely incorporated-by-reference in the Petition (Petitioner does not even do so much). 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 9,107,732 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,107,732
• Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01534 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the petitioner did not establish that Bottino II taught the claimed free fatty acid limit.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To prove collateral estoppel, a party must show the following: (1) that in the prior action the party against whom estoppel is sought had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue: (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the controlling facts and applicable legal rules were the same in both actions; (4) resolution of the particular issue was essential to the final judgment in the first action; and (5) the identical issue was decided in the first action. See Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp., 49 F.3d 1535, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). In considering collateral estoppel of adjudicated patent claims, the patent claims do not have to be identical; rather, “it is the identity of the issues that were litigated that determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.” Ohio Willow Wood, 735 F.3d at 1342. Here, Petitioner provides us with an overview of the similarity of the art used in the previous cases before us involving related patents to the ’567 patent and a general overview of the various components of allegedly “virtually identical krill oil compositions” without addressing a comparison of specific unpatentable claims of these related patents as compared to the specific claims at issue here. See Pet. 42–44. Notably, this overview of similar components of claimed krill oil compositions in the related patents does not address free fatty acids that are at the center of the dispute in this case. Id. Most notably, Petitioner fails to address the five criteria that we have listed above to establish that collateral estoppel applies in this case. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that this is a fatal flaw. Nowhere in the Petition does Petitioner provide an analysis of a previous Board decision where the issue of whether Bottino II teaches an extract with less than 3% free fatty acids w/w of said krill oil (an issue central to resolution of the case here) was litigated, resolved by the Board, and essential to the judgment in that previous case. See Pet. 42–44. Therefore, Petitioner cannot show that the identical issue was decided in any previous case before us. Petitioner’s discussion of the similarity of art previously applied and a generalized overview of different components of various challenged claims of related patents is insufficient. Because Petitioner failed to apply the correct framework, we find that collateral estoppel does not preclude Patent Owner from addressing the issues raised in this inter partes review.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner makes arguments for the first time at oral hearing concerning our alleged previous reliance on Table 2 of Bottino II in finding claims of related patents unpatentable and provides new evidence of Patent Owner’s alleged failure to challenge the reliability of Table 2 of Bottino II. See Tr. 8:7–9:3; Petitioner’s Demonstratives, slide 8. We find that these belated arguments and evidence are inappropriately raised for the first time at oral argument, and we need not consider them. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”) (citing Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1077–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Jaczynski, accepted Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, see Ex. 2001 ¶ 8, and further commented that “[t]he relevant field for the ’567 patent includes extraction of lipids from natural sources,” see id. ¶ 7. Dr. Jaczynski further stated that he considers himself to be an expert in the relevant field. Id. We find that Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the asserted prior art references, and apply it for purposes of this decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). We also find that both Dr. Tallon and Dr. Jaczynski are qualified to opine about how one of skill in the art would view the teachings of the asserted combinations of art in Petitioner’s challenges to the claims. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7–21, Appendix D (Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Tallon); Ex. 2002, Appendix A (Curriculum Vitae of Dr.Jaczynski).” slip op. at 11

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

    “At this final stage of the proceeding, we again determine that no construction of any claim term for which Petitioner has proposed a 13 Petitioner points out that Dr. Tallon testified that his constructions would be the same under the Phillips standard. Reply 6, n.2 (citing Ex. 1086 ¶ 6). definition is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties here as the limitation upon which we resolve this case does not involve these claim terms.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,010,567 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,010,567
• Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2018 · IPR2017-01267 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–13 and 15–20 not shown unpatentable over Law and Sasaki because the evidence did not establish the claimed surface properties.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “degree in materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience” in industry or academic research relating to magnetic tape, or “a master’s degree or higher” in the same fields and at least three years of experience relating to magnetic tape. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response, and Dr. Talke agrees that it “is reasonable.” Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 25–26. Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (May 2, 2016); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we 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)). For the purposes of the Institution Decision, we determined that, based on the record at that time, no claim term required express construction (Dec. on Inst. 7), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed during trial. C.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “The evidence, however, does not establish that a backside surface having a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0 necessarily results from reducing the size and prevalence of the protrusions on the backside surface of Law’s magnetic tape. As Petitioner agrees, Law and Sasaki do not discuss skew and kurtosis values. See Pet. 29 (stating that Law does not expressly disclose skew or kurtosis values); Reply 23 (recognizing that neither Law nor Sasaki contain express disclosures of skew and kurtosis); Tr. 18:22–23 (Petitioner’s counsel noting that there are no reported skew and kurtosis values in Law or Sasaki). Thus, Petitioner relies on Mr. Isobe’s testimony to establish that reducing the protrusions on Law’s backside surface would result in a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0. See Pet. 45–49; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–81, 170–174. In that regard, Mr. Isobe testified as follows:” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “At best, the evidence establishes that reducing protrusions in Law’s backside coating may result in the surface approaching a Gaussian distribution (namely, a skew of 0 and a kurtosis of 3). See Ex. 1003 ¶ 171 (“By reducing the number of peaks the overall surface may become closer to a Gaussian distribution, which by definition has a skew of zero.” (emphasis added)), ¶ 174 (“As the frequency of large protrusions is reduced, the skew of the backcoat surface approaches 0 and the kurtosis becomes closer to 3.” (emphases added)). There is no evidence of record, however, that establishes the skew and kurtosis values of Law’s backside coating before reducing the protrusions as Petitioner proposes. While it is possible that reducing Law’s protrusions could result in skew and kurtosis values within the claimed range, it is also possible that reducing the protrusions could result in a surface that approaches a Gaussian distribution but still has a skew above 0.5 and a kurtosis above 4.0. See Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 36–60, 77–83, 90; see also PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195 (Inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.”). Thus, even if reducing the protrusions on Law’s backside coating caused the surface to approach a Gaussian distribution, that is not sufficient to establish that it necessarily results in a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0 as claimed. The skew and kurtosis values recited in claims 1 and 20 are not simply properties possessed by any backside coating that otherwise satisfies the structural limitations. Instead, they are recited as limitations on which magnetic recording media fall within the scope of the claims. The evidence of record does not establish that reducing the protrusions in Law’s backside coating, as taught by Sasaki, “would have naturally led to a backside surface having a skew less than about 0.5 and a kurtosis less than about 4.0” as Petitioner contends. Pet. 45. Accordingly, on the record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that claims 1 and 20 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Law and Sasaki.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,029,774 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,029,774
• Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. v. United Technologies CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00966 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8–13, 16, and 17 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because SEI did not establish a sufficient reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We disagree. As the Federal Circuit has observed, “[a] preamble is not a claim limitation if the claim body ‘defines a structurally complete invention . . . and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Georgetown Rail, 867 F.3d at 1236 (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The fact that the claims were amended to include storage tanks and recirculation loops actually cuts against UTC’s position, as the claim as amended describes a structurally complete invention and reliance on the preamble for this structure is unnecessary. UTC also points to the fact that the Examiner amended the preamble during prosecution, from merely reciting a “flow battery” to a “redox flow battery.” PO Resp. 15. While “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art” (Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 809) may be a reason to view the preamble as limiting, UTC directs us to no evidence here that the Examiner intended the amendment to distinguish the claims from the prior art. Indeed, as UTC acknowledges in its Response, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’243 patent to use “‘redox flow battery’ and ‘flow battery’ to mean the same thing.” PO Resp. 13 (emphasis added). If, as UTC concedes, the Examiner’s amendment merely substituted one synonym for another, the amendment could not have changed the scope of the claim or distinguished over the prior art. For these reasons, we conclude that the preamble of the claims is not limiting, and, therefore, we need not construe the term redox flow battery.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “SEI contends that the person of ordinary skill should not be limited to only a degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, because the claimed features of the flow batteries are not directed to chemistry. Pet. Reply 7. We agree, and adopt SEI’s definition of the relevant educational background. While the parties differ as to the number of years of experience in working with flow batteries, we do not consider the difference (one versus two years) to be significant. We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would be a person with a degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering, who has at least one year of experience designing or testing flow batteries so as to obtain functional knowledge of their structure and operation. We have reviewed the level of skill reflected in the prior art and consider it consistent with this definition. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “evidence. Our Rule 42.64 provides that a motion to exclude is necessary to preserve any objection, and refers to those objections as “objections to the admissibility” of evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a), (c). The Board’s Trial Practice Guide further explains that a motion to exclude “must explain why the evidence is not admissible.” See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767. In other words, objections to the timing of late-arising evidence or procedural infirmities are not proper for a motion to exclude. For this reason, the objections raised in UTC’s motion to exclude are improper. First, UTC argues that Exhibit 1066 is untimely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b), which requires a translation of a foreign-language document to be filed with the document. Mot. 5. By UTC’s reasoning, because the Supplemental Declaration revisits Mr. Yagaeshi’s prior translation, but was not submitted with the foreign-language document, it violates the Board’s rules. Id. As this is clearly a procedural objection to the timing of the evidence, as opposed to its admissibility, we deny the motion to exclude on this basis. In any event, even if it were procedurally proper, we would not exclude the Supplemental Declaration on this basis. The Board’s Rule requires only that the original foreign-language document be accompanied by a translation, and there is no dispute that is what happened here. We see nothing in Rule 42.63(b) that prohibits a party to revisit, or even modify, its translation at a later date, given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond by the opposing party. Here, we granted UTC the opportunity to submit its own responsive declaration and address the translation issue at the oral hearing, and UTC did so.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “character as a minus sign, which is consistent with Mr. Yagaeshi’s original translation, makes more grammatical sense in the context of the sentence. We take note of the fact that SEI only changed its position on the translation—and asked Mr. Yagaeshi to correct his prior translation—once UTC made arguments based on the original translation that might be detrimental to SEI’s case. While it is conceivable that SEI only became aware of the alleged error once UTC called attention to it in the Response, we consider it fair to hold SEI to its original interpretation, especially given that that original interpretation is in agreement with Mr. Baldwin’s translation, which has remained consistent since at least 2016. For these reasons, we will interpret the disputed passage of JP228 to read “the potential was negative 0.4V.”” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,166,243 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,166,243
• Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01872 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 11–14, 17, and 20–25 were not shown unpatentable because Lu did not teach providing resources to queued users of packet data.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “1. Means-plus-function Terms Claims 11–14 and 17 recite several terms in means-plus-function format. Claim 24 recites several terms in the form of “logic for” performing the functions of parallel terms recited in claim 11. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed constructions, set forth at pages 10–15 of the Petition, as our constructions for the means-plus-function terms of claims 11–14 and 17. Dec. 17–18. We also determined to treat the “logic for” terms of claim 24 as means-plus-function terms, see Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and adopted Petitioner’s statement of the structure corresponding to the “logic for” terms (Pet. 10–13). Id. at 18. Patent Owner does not dispute these constructions. PO Resp. 8. On the complete record, we maintain these constructions.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Read in light of the Specification, “providing said communication resource to queued packet data users on a tier-by-tier basis,” as recited in claim 1, means providing the communication resource to queued users of packet data on a tier-by-tier basis. We are persuaded by Patent Owner that this is the only reasonable reading that is consistent with the Specification. Petitioner provides no examples in the Specification consistent with its reading. Although the preamble of claim 1 recites a “method of processing queued data packets,” this is consistent with the Specification’s general statement that the invention pertains to “an improved packet data queueing algorithm,” Ex. 1001, 9:3. We do not read this general statement in the preamble of claim 1 (or the similar preamble recitations in claims 11 and 24) to provide a basis for construing more specific language in the body of the claim in a manner inconsistent with the description in the Specification. In sum, the only reasonable reading of “queued packet data users,” in the context of the dependent claims, and in light of consistent description in the Specification, is queued users of packet data, not users of queued packet data.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “such as initial class queues 416–438, organized into high, medium, and low classes, are “a plurality of individual packet data queues.” Pet. 19–20. As to claim element 1[b], “determining a total number of data packets that can use an available communication resource,” Petitioner points to Lu’s description of using a weight-based scheduling scheme to transfer packets from one level queue to another. Id. at 23–24. Petitioner identifies the transmission capacity of the output link (e.g., 209) as the “available communication resource,” and contends that such weighted transfer during a cycle includes determining a total number of data packets that can be transferred for a cycle.5 Id. at 24. Petitioner further contends that Lu’s description of using subscriber weights based on subscriber volumes for particular classes teaches “allocating different weights to each tier of service based on a number of users requiring access to the available communication resource,” as recited in claim element 1[c]. Id. at 28–30. Regarding claim element 1[d], Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause the weights of Lu vary with the 4 We refer the claim elements 1[a]–1[e] as identified in Section I.E, above. 5 Patent Owner contends that Lu does not teach claim element 1[b]. PO Resp. 12–23. Because we decide that Petitioner has not shown that Lu teaches claim element 1[e], as detailed below, we do not decide whether Petitioner has shown that Lu teaches claim element 1[b]. available capacity (which in turn would affect the ‘total number of data packets that can use an available communication resource’), the weights of Lu consistently indicate how much (i.e., ‘proportion’) of the capacity (‘total number of data packets’) each class (i.e., ‘tier of service’) will receive.” Id. at 32.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s Reply argument is not simply rebuttal to the Patent Owner Response. Rather, it is an attempt to formulate a new prima facie case of obviousness. The Office has instructed that such improper Reply argument will not be considered: A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition. [37 C.F.R.] § 42.23. While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or 6 In the Institution Decision, we considered Petitioner’s argument and evidence (including Mr. Lanning’s testimony, Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–97) and determined that Petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to show a reason to modify Lu and, accordingly, declined to institute as to claims 5 and 15. Dec. 26–27. unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The “Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because IBS relied on an entirely new rationale.”). Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s Reply argument for claim element 1[e]. For the same reasons, we do not consider the argument Petitioner made for the first time at the oral argument (Tr. 22:17–23:2). Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768 (“A party may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In this case, the Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,385,994 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,385,994
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00343 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 6–14, 18, 19, 21–27, and 29–37 not shown unpatentable because Conwell did not disclose a non-exhaustive search and Ghias and Philyaw did not teach one.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “exhaustive, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. PO Resp. 23– 32. Patent Owner argues that Conwell teaches identifying a match using a look-up table, but the process is not disclosed to be non-exhaustive. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–44, 5:59–61, Fig. 3; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 364–366). Patent Owner additionally argues that “[w]hile there are ways to search the lookup table disclosed in Conwell using a non-exhaustive approach, Conwell does not disclose any such non-exhaustive approach.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 369). We agree that Conwell does not explicitly disclose that the look-up is performed non-exhaustively. Further, Patent Owner argues that Conwell also does not inherently disclose using the look-up table to conduct a non-exhaustive search. Id. at 27–31. Patent Owner continues that “Conwell provides no details as to how the exact-match search between the hashed identifier of the work to be identified and the hashed identifiers in the reference database is actually performed.” Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1009, 3:43–62). Patent Owner argues that Conwell details how its database is maintained, but does not provide specific disclosures as to how the database is searched. Id. at 31–32. We also agree that Conwell does not inherently disclose that the look-up is performed nonexhaustively.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “As Patent Owner points out, the second search of the identified matches is performed exhaustively of Works A, C, D, and E. Tr. 40–43 (citing Ex. 1010 7:4–9; Ex. 2005 ¶ 288; Ex. 2006, 325:12–21, 336:12–22). If viewed as separate and independent searches, both would be exhaustive of the data set being searched, and if viewed as a single search, all of the initially input records of the data set (i.e., Works A–E) would be searched by that single search, making it exhaustive. As such, we agree that Ghias does not teach or suggest a non-exhaustive search, as recited in the independent claims. Petitioner responds that Ghias’s subsequent searches are non- exhaustive (Reply 13–14), but we have addressed the same in the prior paragraph, not finding it to be persuasive. Petitioner also argues that the queries from the “first” and “second” searches need not be the same, and in fact would likely be different, such that the results for the first query could exclude non-matches from the results, where those non-matches would be matches for the second query, so that the subsequent search for the second query would not consider these excluded references. Id. at 14. We are not persuaded, however, as the search would still be exhaustive to the dataset provided to the search algorithm. As discussed above, we construe “non-exhaustive search” as “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” We are not persuaded that simply because a search does not seek matches outside of its input records would make that search non-exhaustive; that would make every search non-exhaustive, because it is, by definition, limited to the records input or available to the search algorithm. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that its string matching algorithms operate faster than a brute force search (Reply 14–15), but we are persuaded, as discussed above, that this disclosure is related to comparing a work with a single record in the database, and not with respect to all of the records in the database. Petitioner also argues that Ghias discloses that performance may be improved by “packing all the songs into one file,” whereby the non-exhaustive searching within a record would apply to all of the concatenated record, making the search of the records non-exhaustive. Id. at 15. With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “i.e., exhaustive and non-exhaustive, and that “one would have envisaged a ‘non-exhaustive’ search as the predominant form of ‘database query,’” such that Conwell discloses the elements of the claims in substance. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 371; In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We do not agree. Instead, we find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Karypis that exhaustive methods may be employed to perform the database lookup in Conwell, and that Conwell does not disclose any non-exhaustive approach. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 367–369. Although Petitioner alleges that Dr. Karypis’s declaration “is replete with attorney argument presented in the guise of expert testimony,” and thus entitled to little weight (Reply 19), we find no fault with his specific review and interpretation of Conwell, and we are persuaded that it demonstrates that the lookup processes in Conwell need not be non-exhaustive.” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to this latter argument, we agree with Patent Owner that this represents a “new theory” of the ground than that established in the Petition. Paper 24, 1–2. Compare Pet. 47–48, with Reply 14–15. We will not consider such new arguments for the purposes of this decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,640,179 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,640,179

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.