• Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch LtdAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2014-01361 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–43 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are not shown patentable, and the Second Motion to Amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Decision on Institution, we discussed the meaning of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” but otherwise found that no claim terms required express construction. Dec. on Inst. 4. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not dispute our interpretation of “consisting essentially of,” or propose constructions for any additional claim terms. Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments, we conclude that no explicit constructions are required in order to resolve the issues pending before the Board.” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “establishing that it is entitled to add proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). As part of this showing, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Upon review of the Second Motion to Amend, we are persuaded that the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 have been met. For example, Patent Owner seeks to add only two substitute claims, each of which serves to narrow the scope of original claim 18. Mot. 17–18. Patent Owner also identifies exemplary electrolytes disclosed in the originally-filed application that fall within the scope of proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1010, 33, 35–36 (disclosing an electrolyte containing ethylene glycol, water, isobutyric acid, and ammonium hydroxide (which results in an ammonium salt of the organic acid) with a pH of 4.9, a conductivity of 7.1 mS/cm, and an anode breakdown voltage of 395 volts)). Thus, we focus on whether Patent Owner has met its burden of proof to show that proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Clark, however, discloses successfully substituting acetic acid in an electrolyte solution with “other low molecular weight paraffin acids,” including butyric, propionic, and lactic acids, as well as forming corresponding ammonium salts of these organic acids. Ex. 1003, 2:40–46, 3:46–61. Likewise, GB 466,193 broadly discloses that acetic acid may be replaced in an electrolyte solution with organic acids of the aliphatic series, including butyric acid and isobutyric acid. Ex. 1015, 3:73–79. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not point to any persuasive evidence to support or explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered isobutyric acid, as implied in Clark and expressly identified in GB 466,193, to be a suitable substitute for acetic acid in the electrolyte of Shah. Indeed, similar to the disclosures of Clark and GB 466,193, the ’117 patent discloses that “other relatively weak organic acids of the general formula cnH2+nO2 (where n=2 to 7) are acceptable.”9 Thus, we are not persuaded that Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 fail to teach or suggest every limitation of proposed substitute claim 44.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “1 of Shah is ten times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, and the resulting conductivity (47.5 mS/cm) is 6.7 times higher than that of electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent (7.1 mS/cm). First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3); Ex. 1001, 2:14–16 (confirming that the ammonium salt “provides electrical conductivity” in the electrolyte). Given the disclosure of Evans that anode breakdown voltage decreases with increasing conductivity (conductivity being the inverse of resistivity), Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the 150 volt difference in anode breakdown voltage between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is “contrary to” the teachings of Evans. First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3),11; Ex. 2004, 3 (Figure 4). Nor does Patent Owner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art could not use the disclosure of Evans to modify the resistivity of the electrolyte of Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 to obtain an anode breakdown voltage within the 370 to 400 volt range of proposed substitute claim 45. Thus, we are not persuaded that the 150 volt difference between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is nonobvious or surprising. Patent Owner also contends that if acetic acid was equivalent to isobutyric acid, such that it could be replaced interchangeably, “a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 Patent electrolyte, both of which have almost identical pH~4.9.” First Mot. to Amend 11. We note, however, that, as set forth in Table 3 above, electrolyte 1 of Shah has a conductivity that is 6.7 times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, as well as ten times the ammonium constituent, two and a half times the acid constituent, half the ethylene glycol, and five times the phosphoric acid as compared to electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent. In view of the wide difference in constituents and resulting conductivity levels between the two electrolytes, and in view of the teaching of Evans that anode breakdown voltage depends on the resistivity of the electrolyte, Patent Owner provides insufficient argument or evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “[i]f acetic acid were equivalent to isobutyric acid . . . a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 patent electrolyte . . . .” First Mot. to Amend 11. Accordingly, even if arguments made in the First Motion to Amend were considered, we would still not be persuaded that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art. Thus, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,687,117 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,687,117
• Geox S.P.A. v. Outdry Technologies CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01244 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); the motion to amend claims 16 and 17 is denied for failure to establish written-description support and patentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that “[w]aterproofing leather is not a sophisticated technology, and the education level of a PHOSITA working in the industry is likely a four year degree.” PO Resp. 30. According to Patent Owner, a PHOSITA likely would have knowledge related to making apparel from leather, waterproofing leather using sprays and liners, as well as knowledge of adhesives and bonding leather apparel, and also knowledge of waterproof breathable membranes of various types. Id. We consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which Patent Owner essentially summarizes as the knowledge of a PHOSITA. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton” slip op. at 5

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

    “interpreted to include either a temporary support that is removed, such as a release sheet, or one that becomes part of the final product, such as a liner. Pet. 11. Patent Owner contends that the term should be construed to be limited to “sheets” because “[n]o other material forms are disclosed other than ‘sheets,’ which include paper and fabric support sheets.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:58–67). According to Patent Owner, the broadest reasonable construction, therefore, “includes any sheet of flexible fabric or fibrous material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Id. at 7–8. In the Decision on Institution, we construed “support sheet” as “includ[ing] any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Dec. on Inst. 6. This construction is based on the Specification, which describes multiple embodiments of the support sheet, including a detachable sheet and an internal liner. Ex. 1001, 2:58–67. The Specification also describes the use of “different materials” to make the support sheet. Id. at 2:63–64. Accordingly, we conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of “support sheet” is not limited to a sheet of fabric or fibrous material as Patent Owner contends, but, rather, explicitly includes “different materials” that can be fastened generally to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane. Therefore, consistent with the Specification, we construe “support sheet” to mean a sheet of any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “required degree of contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions that are between the dots of adhesive. The ’171 patent summarizes the invention as enabling a membrane to be applied directly to leather by providing a surface of the membrane with a glue pattern. Ex. 1001, 1:56–61. The invention is said to “avoid the use of a semipermeable lining and the water penetration between leather and lining.” Id. at 1:60–61. The title of the invention states “Process for Waterproofing Leather” and describes the leather used in the process as “leather waterproofed by said process.” Id. at 2:27–28. These disclosures do not define either the word “waterproof” as used in the Specification or the word “directly” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9 to mean that there is constant contact between the membrane and leather such that no water permeates the leather, as Patent Owner contends. In an embodiment of the invention, heating of the membrane during pressing is said to result in “a perfect adhesion” that does not plug the pores with glue. Id. at 2:31–42–45. Heating of the membrane during pressing is carried out also in the single example disclosed in the ’171 patent. Id. at 3:12. The leather samples in the example are said to have been “waterproofed by the process according to the present invention” and “hot-pressed with a hydrophilic non-porous semi-permeable membrane of polyurethane material having a thickness of 10 µm.” Id. at 3:9–14. These disclosures of an embodiment and an example do not define “directly pressing” or “waterproofing” or even “perfect adhesion” to mean constant contact between the leather and the membrane or that no water permeates the leather. Therefore, we decline to import such limitations into the term “directly pressing” based on Patent Owner’s argument that these properties are present inherently in the embodiment of the example in the ’171 patent. Accordingly, we construe “directly pressing” to mean applying pressure without any intervening materials or layers other than the recited adhesive.” slip op. at 9

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

    “combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton. Petitioner has established that Thornton’s process for waterproofing leather by using spaced dots of adhesive in a discontinuous configuration on a semi-permeable membrane that is pressed against the leather meets the requirements of claims 1 and 9 but for the dot density and dot size ranges specified by the claims, respectively. Petitioner also provided a rational underpinning for combining the disclosures of Scott and Hayton, which provide guidance for the density and size of adhesive dots to adhere a semi-permeable membrane to a porous layer. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the teachings of Scott and Hayton are unrelated to the problem of adhering a membrane to a leather layer in view of Thornton’s disclosure that both leather and fabric material are amenable to its process for waterproofing breathable articles of clothing. Ex. 1003, 7:58–62. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton does not disclose all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The ranges explicitly disclosed in Hayton overlap with the ranges recited in claims 1 and 9. Patent Owner does not argue, and the Specification does not indicate, any criticality associated with the portion of the ranges that are not encompassed by Hayton’s ranges. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rather, the claimed ranges appear once in the Specification as a preferred embodiment when the pattern of thermoadhesive glue is dots of polyurethane glue. Ex. 1001, 2:37–42. Patent Owner’s arguments distinguishing Thornton on the basis that it does not teach constant contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions between the spaced dots of adhesive is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above in connection with Patent Owner’s claim construction argument that this is required by the claim term “directly pressing.” In addition, we find that Thornton’s semi-permeable membrane completely covers the leather layer in the sense that the leather layer surface faces the membrane surface to form a composite. Thornton explicitly describes drawing the membrane barrier component over a former, applying adhesive to the outer surface of the film, drawing the outer glove layer onto the former, and bonding the layers by pressing. Ex. 1003, 21:64–22:8; Reply 9. Thornton also discloses layers on the former are placed in register (Ex. 1003, 21:33–35) and that the composite can be formed face to face in sheets (id. at 6:62–66, 7:13–31; Reply 8).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,855,171 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,855,171
• First Quality Baby Products, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-01024 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 25–32 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious in view of Brandon, Anderson, and Long.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues Brandon teaches that training pants should be designed to feel different than diapers to facilitate toilet training, but that replacing its bonded seams by adding refastenable seams such as in Anderson, or adding the containment flaps and surge layer of Long, contradicts that goal by making the training pants resemble diapers. Id. at 36–40. The evidence of record, however, belies that argument. As Petitioner notes (Pet. Reply 13–14), Anderson discloses explicitly that its refastenable seams “approximate the side seams of a normal underpant” (Ex. 1206, 4:27–34), and notes the importance of training pants that “look like a normal panty when first put on by the child” (id. at 2:35–36). Patent Owner’s argument also is unpersuasive with respect to Brandon because it only relies on the conclusory testimony of its declarant. PO Resp. 37–38. On this issue, Mr. Butterworth’s Declaration only states conclusorily that adding a surge layer or containment flaps “would render the garment closer to a conventional disposable diaper.” Ex. 2206 ¶ 79. Compared to the evidence Petitioner cites to support its asserted rationale for combining the references, which we find compelling, we give little weight to this portion of Mr. Butterworth’s testimony because the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, if any, were not disclosed. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.” slip op. at 20

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “all related evidence is irrelevant. See id. Rule 401 states that evidence is relevant if “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Petitioner does not dispute that the evidence in question pertains to facts underlying Patent Owner’s contentions regarding secondary considerations. Whether Patent Owner failed to provide sufficient evidence or neglected to supply all of the necessary analysis does not negate the relevance of that evidence. In addition, we note that Petitioner’s motion is moot because of our decision above that the challenged claims are unpatentable even considering this evidence. This portion of the Motion is denied.” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “8 Both parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had two to four years of work experience in product design and testing of disposable absorbent articles, such as diapers and training pants. Pet. 13–14; PO Resp. 7. We adopt this characterization and apply it to our analysis.” slip op. at 10

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

    “claimed training pants “can further include releasable side bonds . . . for improved reliability of maintaining the pant in a prefastened condition particularly when it is being pulled on or off over the hips of the wearer.” Ex. 1201, 20:1–4. In addition, the specification states: “The absorbent articles are desirably pre-fastened to provide a pant-like product for the user. The product can then be pulled on like a conventional training pant . . . .” Id. at 5:31–34. The specification does not describe any manufacturing process for prefastening training pants. Mr. Butterworth’s testimony is based solely on claim language indicating that the recited fastening components and mating fastening components are the elements that are prefastened. Ex. 2206 ¶ 50. His conclusion, however, is not supported by that claim language, which does not reference manufacturing or a timeframe prior to sale. See Ex. 1214, 99:13–16, 102:25–103:9 (Mr. Butterworth indicating at his deposition that the ’379 patent does not discuss a manufacturing process for prefastening the claimed training pant, or when the training pants are prefastened).6 Based on the record presented, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “prefastened” in light of the specification requires that the claimed training pant be fastened prior to wear, but does not require fastening during manufacturing or prior to sale.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 8,747,379 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,747,379
• First Quality Baby Products, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2015 · IPR2014-01023 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 33–54 are unpatentable under § 103(a): claims 33–42, 44, 45, 47–49, and 51–53 over Brandon and Anderson; claims 43, 46, 50, and 54 over Brandon, Anderson, and Long.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As Petitioner asserts, the intrinsic evidence does not support the construction advanced by Patent Owner. The ’379 patent explains that the claimed training pants “can further include releasable side bonds . . . for improved reliability of maintaining the pant in a prefastened condition particularly when it is being pulled on or off over the hips of the wearer.” Ex. 1101, 20:1–4. In addition, the specification states: “The absorbent articles are desirably pre-fastened to provide a pant-like product for the user. The product can then be pulled on like a conventional training pant . . . .” Id. at 5:31–34. The specification does not describe any manufacturing process for prefastening training pants. Mr. Butterworth’s testimony is based solely on claim language indicating that the recited fastening components and mating fastening components are the elements that are prefastened. Ex. 2106 ¶ 48. His conclusion, however, is not supported by that claim language, which does not reference manufacturing or a timeframe prior to sale. See Ex. 1114, 99:13–16, 102:25–103:9 (Mr. Butterworth indicating at his deposition that the ’379 patent does not discuss a manufacturing process for prefastening the claimed training pant, or when the training pants are prefastened).6 Based on the record presented, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “prefastened” in light of the specification requires that the claimed training pant be fastened prior to wear, but does not require fastening during manufacturing or prior to sale.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner contends, however, that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Brandon and Anderson in the manner asserted by Petitioner because both Brandon and Anderson teach away from such a combination. PO Resp. 32–40. First, Patent Owner argues Brandon teaches that training pants should be designed to feel different than diapers to facilitate toilet training, but that replacing its bonded seams by adding refastenable seams such as in Anderson contradicts that goal by making the training pants resemble diapers. Id. at 33–35. The evidence of record, however, belies that argument. As Petitioner notes (Pet. Reply 13), Anderson discloses explicitly that its refastenable seams “approximate the side seams of a normal underpant” (Ex. 1106, 4:27–34), and notes the importance of training pants that “look like a normal panty when first put on by the child” (id. at 2:35–36). Next, Patent Owner argues Anderson teaches away from the asserted combination with Brandon because Anderson teaches away from using its releasable fastening system with a liquid impermeable outer cover, as taught by Brandon and required by claim 33. PO Resp. 36–40. Patent Owner is correct that Anderson discloses advantages to constructing training pants to allow some moisture to leak through the outer cover. See, e.g., Ex. 1106, 3:40–49 (explaining that a preferred embodiment of Anderson includes a “moisture permeable outer covering” that facilitates toilet training by alerting the child to a bowel or bladder accident). According to Patent Owner, Anderson discloses the use of refastenable seams because they facilitate removal while minimizing contamination, which is only necessary due to the moisture permeable covering. See PO Resp. 38–39. Patent Owner’s position is unpersuasive, however, because merely describing the benefits of a moisture permeable cover does not teach away from using an impermeable cover. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). At the oral hearing, Patent Owner also admitted that nothing in the record indicates a person of ordinary skill would have been led to avoid training pants that do not allow moisture to leak through the outer cover. See Tr. 61:21–62:6; see also Ex. 1114, 339:10–18 (Mr. Butterworth testifying that Anderson does not disparage the use of refastenable seams with liquid permeable outer covers). Based on the full record after trial, Petitioner has established sufficiently a reason with rational underpinning to combine Brandon and Anderson. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Consequently, a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that claim 33 of the ’379 patent is unpatentable as obvious in view of the combination of Brandon and Anderson.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on Mr. Butterworth’s testimony, which we find credible, the record indicates that the limitations of claim 36 were known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the record supports Petitioner’s argument that the size limitations of claim 36 do not distinguish the claim from the prior art, which ordinary artisans knew to provide the benefit of adjustability, as Mr. Butterworth testified. See Gardner, 725 F.2d at 1349. Petitioner’s contentions are further supported by the evidence indicating this alleged benefit was not a critical aspect of the claimed invention. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“These cases [including Gardner] have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.”). Consequently, considering the full record after trial, a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that claim 36 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Brandon and Anderson.” slip op. at 23

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

    “To establish a nexus between alleged commercial success and the challenged claims, Patent Owner must show “that the thing (product or method) that is commercially successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that a nexus was not demonstrated where “GPAC did not establish which claim(s) of the patent the [allegedly successful] licensing program incorporates”). Patent Owner does not, however, provide an analysis establishing that its PULL-UPS product practices any claim or claims of the ’379 patent. 16 As indicated earlier, we need not reach the issue of whether Patent Owner’s arguments as to secondary considerations are barred due to collateral estoppel because we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the challenged claims are unpatentable, even considering Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence. In addition, even assuming arguendo that Patent Owner’s evidence establishes a nexus between the commercial success of its PULL-UPS product and the specific refastenable fastening system recited in the challenged claims, Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate that “the asserted commercial success of the product [is] due to the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” See J. T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). As discussed above, the record establishes that the refastenable fastening system recited in the challenged claims was taught in the prior art. Relying on Gillette Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., Patent Owner argues that the “fact that all elements of a claim are in the prior art does not by itself defeat commercial success,” and that “the prior art discloses only individual elements of the patented training pants, but there is no prior art that discloses the unique combination found in the claims of the ’379 Patent.” PO Resp. 59–60 (citing 919 F.2d 720, 725 (Fed.Cir.1990)). In Gillette, although each individual element of the claimed chemical composition was known in the art, it was undisputed that the composition as a whole had “superior properties” that were unique to the composition rather than any individual component. See 919 F.2d at 725. In contrast, Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence focus on a single element of its claimed invention—“refastenable elastomeric sides”—and Patent Owner does not identify any evidence indicating the claimed refastenable sides (or any other claimed feature or combination of features) had unique properties or advantages beyond those found in the prior art training pants relied on by Petitioner.17 See PO Resp. 56–58.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,747,379 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,747,379
• First Quality Baby Products, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2015 · IPR2014-01021 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–17, and 19–23 over Brandon and Anderson; claims 11, 14, 18, and 24 over Brandon, Anderson, and Long.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the full record after trial, the evidence presented supports Petitioner’s view. It is undisputed that Brandon teaches a seam extending 100% of the distance between the waist and leg openings. See Tr. 44:13–15; Ex. 1014, 82:15–22. The record also indicates it was well known in the art generally to provide 80–100% seams. Ex. 1014, 85:3–8; Ex. 1021 ¶ 99. Although Patent Owner disputes that Anderson teaches an 80–100% seam, such an express disclosure is not required given Brandon’s disclosure of a 100% seam. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Moreover, Petitioner argues persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Anderson also to teach an 80–100% seam because such a seam was known to be important to prevent undesired tearing or separation, and to best approximate a normal underpant. Pet. Reply 11–13; see Ex. 1006, 2:35–36, 4:32–37, Fig. 2; Ex. 1014, 83:14–23, 85:3–20; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 99, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107.11 In sum, Petitioner has established sufficiently that the combination of Brandon and Anderson teaches or suggests each limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have been led to combine the training pants of Brandon with the refastenable seam of Anderson because the references identify solutions for the same problem, namely potential contamination on the child when removing soiled training pants. Pet. 22–24 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419– 20 (2007)). The record supports Petitioner’s position. Brandon states that “side seams 20 may be constructed to be manually tearable in order to allow training pant 10 to be disassembled manually by the caregiver, so that it can be easily removed from the child after a bowel movement.” Ex. 1002, 11. Anderson discloses that training pants with tearable seams “facilitate removal of the panty after the child has either a bowel accident or a bladder accident,” which reduces “incidents of contamination on the child and in the area surrounding the child.” Ex. 1006, 1:46–55. Anderson further teaches refastenable side seams, as discussed above, explaining that “in the event of an accident the [refastenable] seams are readily released to facilitate removal of the panty without undue contamination.” Id. at 4:32–37.” slip op. at 17

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

    “not have been motivated to combine Brandon and Anderson in the manner asserted by Petitioner because both Brandon and Anderson teach away from such a combination. PO Resp. 31–39. First, Patent Owner argues Brandon teaches that training pants should be designed to feel different than diapers to facilitate toilet training, but that replacing its bonded seams by adding refastenable seams such as in Anderson contradicts that goal by making the training pants resemble diapers. Id. at 32–35. The evidence of record, however, belies that argument. As Petitioner notes (Pet. Reply 13), Anderson discloses explicitly that its refastenable seams “approximate the side seams of a normal underpant” (Ex. 1006, 4:27–34), and notes the importance of training pants that “look like a normal panty when first put on by the child” (id. at 2:35–36). Next, Patent Owner argues Anderson teaches away from the asserted combination with Brandon because Anderson teaches away from using its releasable fastening system with a liquid impermeable outer cover, as taught by Brandon and required by claim 1. PO Resp. 35–39. Patent Owner is correct that Anderson discloses advantages to constructing training pants to allow some moisture to leak through the outer cover. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 3:40–49 (explaining that a preferred embodiment of Anderson includes a “moisture permeable outer covering” that facilitates toilet training by alerting the child to a bowel or bladder accident). According to Patent Owner, Anderson discloses the use of refastenable seams because they facilitate removal while minimizing contamination, which is only necessary due to the moisture permeable covering. See PO Resp. 37–38. Patent Owner’s position is unpersuasive, however, because merely describing the benefits of a moisture permeable cover does not teach away from using an impermeable cover. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). At the oral hearing, Patent Owner also admitted that nothing in the record indicates a person of ordinary skill would have been led to avoid training pants that do not allow moisture to leak through the outer cover. See Tr. 61:21–62:6; see also Ex. 1014, 339:10–18 (Mr. Butterworth testifying that Anderson does not disparage the use of refastenable seams with liquid permeable outer covers). Based on the full record after trial, Petitioner has established sufficiently a reason with rational underpinning to combine Brandon and Anderson. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “deposition testimony (Tr. 54:1–16), but argued the testimony should be disregarded because neither Mr. Butterworth nor Patent Owner had fair notice of Petitioner’s arguments or an adequate opportunity to present counterevidence—for example, regarding possible teaching away (e.g., Tr. 54:19–55:9). We disagree. As an initial matter, Patent Owner is correct that the Petition does not include specifically an allegation that the size limitation was known generally in the art, and does not present evidence of that fact. Such evidence, however, was introduced into the record through discovery in the form of Mr. Butterworth’s deposition testimony. Patent Owner does not advance persuasively any reason to block Petitioner from relying on this evidence, which could not have been cited in the Petition because Mr. Butterworth’s deposition had not yet occurred.12 In essence, Patent Owner requests that the Board prevent Petitioner from using evidence in the record it admits is inconsistent with its position on patentability, and which its own expert provided to Petitioner during discovery. We decline to do so. Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s protestations of prejudice. Although Patent Owner asserts Mr. Butterworth was not given a fair opportunity to “prepare” for Petitioner’s questions, Patent Owner proffered him as an expert in this field and otherwise relies on his testimony regarding 12 Although Petitioner’s position would have been stronger had it provided similar evidence with the Petition, the fact remains that the record includes Mr. Butterworth’s testimony, which was routine discovery provided in the normal course of this inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii). similar issues. See, e.g., PO Resp. 33–35 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 74–77 (Mr. Butterworth’s declaration testimony regarding “the conventional wisdom in the industry at the time of the invention”)). The testimony relied on by Petitioner was provided in response to basic questions about the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art and whether the recited limitation was known in the art at the time of the invention. Ex. 1014, 151:2–13, 152:10–14. Moreover, the Petition plainly raised the issue of whether any alleged functionality of the limitations of claim 4 already was known to be provided by the prior art. Pet. 25. Petitioner’s questioning of Mr. Butterworth on this issue should not have been unexpected considering he provided testimony on the subject in his Declaration, which Patent Owner submitted with its Response. See Ex. 2006 ¶ 95; PO Resp. 41. Patent Owner does not dispute the veracity of Mr. Butterworth’s testimony. Further, Patent Owner does not argue that he misunderstood the questions (Tr. 53:18–24), and did not move to exclude the testimony.13 Patent Owner had the opportunity to adduce further testimony from Mr. Butterworth at his deposition to clarify or supplement his testimony, but it did not do so with respect to the testimony at issue. See Tr. 57:12–58:8. No attempt was made to seek relief from the Board or to introduce further information into the record (e.g., a supplemental declaration or additional briefing). See Tr. 59:18–60:6. Patent Owner made no request to have Mr. 13 Patent Owner properly raised at the oral hearing the issue of whether Petitioner’s arguments should be disregarded as improper new arguments, rather than raising the issue in a motion to exclude. See Tr. 58:9–59:2. That is a distinct issue, however, from whether Mr. Butterworth’s cross-examination testimony should be excluded as inadmissible because it is allegedly misleading or incomplete. In any event, we also conclude Petitioner’s arguments were not improper.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,747,379 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,747,379
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Astrazeneca ABInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2015 · IPR2015-01340 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 would have been obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’186 patent. Therefore, we deny an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’186 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “a personal of ordinary skill would have chosen compound 25 as a lead compound. Accepting that compound 25 is a lead compound, it nevertheless “remains necessary to identify some reason that would have led a chemist to modify a known compound in a particular manner to establish prima facie obviousness of a new claimed compound.” Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, we focus on whether the evidence of record supports Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the 6- carbon cyclohexyl group at the 2-position of compound 25 with a 10-carbon adamantyl moiety. 1. Stability Petitioner points to the stability of compound 25 as an important reason for selecting it as a lead compound. See, e.g., Pet. 25; Reply 3–4. For example, Petitioner argues that Ashworth I teaches the advantages of a large cycloalkyl moiety, such as the cyclohexyl group of compound 25, in promoting both stability (by preventing cyclization of the primary amine) and affinity (by biasing the molecule toward the trans configuration). Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 111–121. Petitioner further argues, however, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the cyclohexyl group of compound 25 with the even larger cycloalkyl adamantyl group taught by Villhauer to increase its stability and potency (affinity).2 Ex. 1003 ¶ 113; Pet. 26. Petitioner does not, however, explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to further increase the stability of compound 25. In light of the evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that such motivation is lacking. Prelim. Resp. 44–47.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Applying this analysis, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art1 would have selected Ashworth I compound 25 (“compound 25”) as a lead compound in the development of DP-IV inhibitors “because of its superior combination of potency and stability.” Reply 1 (citing Pet. 24–25). Compound 25 has the structure shown below: Compound 25 comprises a glycyl moiety having a primary amine (NH2), a cyclohexyl group on the β-carbon (2-position) of the glycyl moiety, and a 1 At this stage of the proceeding, we accept Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would typically “have an advanced degree (e.g., a Ph.D.) in pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical chemistry, medicinal chemistry or a related field and at least 2-3 years of practical experience in the design of drugs” or less education but considerably more professional experience. Pet. 12; see Prelim. Resp. 31.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
• Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG And LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AGRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2015 · IPR2014-00549 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving its prior decision that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 were unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) in place.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “We have carefully reviewed Patent Owner’s arguments presented in the Request for Rehearing, but do not find them persuasive. In particular, the Decision squarely addresses the Federal Circuit’s decision in Watson and explains why that decision does not control in this proceeding. Final Dec. 4. Specifically, we stated: The Federal Circuit’s Watson decision does not control here because Noven has presented additional prior art and declaratory evidence that was not before the Court in Watson. Moreover, in an inter partes review, a petitioner’s burden of proving unpatentability is by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by clear and convincing evidence, as required in district court litigation. Thus, while we have considered the Federal Circuit’s decision, we have independently analyzed patentability of the challenged claims based on the evidence and standards that are applicable to this proceeding. Id.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “different evidence than what Watson presented in district court regarding what Elmalem would have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the Petitioners relied upon the declaration testimony of Dr. Kydonieus and Dr. Schöneich. Patent Owner has not shown that the same declaratory evidence was presented in the district court case reviewed by the Federal Circuit. In the Decision, we explain our finding that Elmalem’s disclosure suggests adding an antioxidant to rivastigmine to prevent oxidation was based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented to us. Final Dec. 32. In particular, upon considering and comparing the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Klibanov, with that of Petitioner’s experts, Drs. Kydonieus and Schöneich, we afforded greater persuasive weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s experts. See id. at 31–35.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Moreover, as Dr. Kydonieus explained, the EMEA guidelines are directed toward justifying the use of an antioxidant. Ex. 1031, ¶ 93. The EMEA guideline states, “Antioxidants should not be used to disguise poorly formulated products or inadequate packaging. The need to include an antioxidant should be explained and fully justified.” Ex. 2019, 2. Thus, we understand the guidance as a whole to be directed to avoiding the use of an antioxidant to cure inadequate formulation or packaging techniques, rather than categorically avoiding the addition of an antioxidant to prevent oxidative degradation in compounds with known susceptibility to such degradation. As discussed in the Final Decision, based on our consideration of the record as a whole, we found that Petitioner established that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted that the transdermal formulation disclosed by Enz was susceptible to oxidative degradation and would have been motivated to add an antioxidant with a reasonable expectation of successfully avoiding that predicted degradation. See, e.g., 21 (addressing the combination of Enz and Sasaki) and 35 (addressing the” slip op. at 12

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,316,023
• Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG And LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AGRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2015 · IPR2014-00550 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–3, 7, 15, 16, and 18 unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a).

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Rehearing Request is denied.” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “different evidence than what Watson presented in district court regarding what Elmalem would have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the Petitioners relied upon the declaration testimony of Dr. Kydonieus and Dr. Schöneich. Patent Owner has not shown that the same declaratory evidence was presented in the district court case reviewed by the Federal Circuit. In the Decision, we explain our finding that Elmalem’s disclosure suggests adding an antioxidant to rivastigmine to prevent oxidation was based upon our consideration of the evidence and arguments presented to us. Final Dec. 32. In particular, upon considering and comparing the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Klibanov, with that of Petitioner’s experts, Drs. Kydonieus and Schöneich, we afforded greater persuasive weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s experts. See id. at 31–35. Thus, to the extent that Patent Owner asserts that the Board overlooked its burden under In re Baxter International, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(“Baxter”) to not arrive at a different conclusion than the Federal Circuit, Req. Reh’g 1, the argument is misplaced as the evidence and arguments presented in this proceeding differed from that considered by the court system in that litigation. See Baxter at 1365–66 (acknowledging burden of proof and record evidence considered by the Board was different than in court system and affirming the Board’s different result, i.e., that the challenged claims were not patentable). As in Baxter, our expert credibility determination is not comparable to that of the district court, as we only considered the persuasive testimony of two experts “that had not been raised in the prior district court proceeding.” id. at 1365. Thus, the Federal Circuit’s deference to and affirmance of the credibility determinations of the district court do not control the outcome in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,335,031
• Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00713 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment and cancelled claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include disclaimer of the involved application or patent and cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial. Id. In light of Patent Owner’s disclaimer of claims 1–44 of the ’077 patent, we determine that entry of judgment against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 23, 24, 30, and 31 of the ’077 patent is appropriate.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,035,077
• United States Department Of Homeland Security v. Larry GoldenRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2015 · IPR2014-00714 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of substitute claims 154–156 because they were broader, lacked written description support, and were not shown patentable over the prior art.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Id. The request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “three independent reasons: (1) substitute claims 154–156 are impermissibly broader than the claims they replaced; (2) Patent Owner failed to show written description support for substitute claims 154–156 as a whole; and (3) Patent Owner failed to show that claims 154–156 were patentable over the prior art of record. Final Dec. 15–21 (improper broadening), 21–22, (written description), 22–31 (prior art of record). Therefore, to succeed on this Rehearing Request, Patent Owner must show that we misapprehended or overlooked matters in reaching each of these determinations. Patent Owner has not done so. We address Patent Owner’s arguments in detail below.” slip op. at 3

  • ScopeDenied

    “In any event, this priority date argument does not contain any reason why our determination that substitute claims 154–156 are broader in scope than cancelled claims 11, 74, and 81 that they seek to replace was in error. Reh’g Req. 4–5. To the extent that Patent Owner does contest our finding that the claims are broader in scope, we do not find it persuasive because Patent Owner does not show amending a claim to replace a particular species with an entire genus would not be broadening. Thus, this argument regarding priority date does not persuade us that we erred in denying Patent Owner’s motion to amend.” slip op. at 4

  • 112 supportDenied

    “B. Lack of Written Description Support Patent Owner argues that we should also excuse Patent Owner’s failure to identify written description support for the entire claim because of the “special circumstances” discussed above. Reh’g Req. 2–3. Without determining whether such an exception exists for the requirement of providing written description support for the entire claim, Patent Owner fails to identify anywhere in the Patent Owner Response or Motion to Amend where this argument was raised. Because the argument was not raised, we could not have misapprehended or overlooked it. Thus, we determine that Patent Owner has failed to show that we erred in our determination that the Motion to Amend failed to show written description support for the claim as a whole.” slip op. at 5

  § 102 anticipation

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.