• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01363 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 10–13 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Holmberg, Battey, Blankenship, and Cowen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 1 year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Pet. 7. Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–31). Dr. Eldering agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to communication networks or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. According to Dr. Eldering, “[a] person with less relevant practical experience but with additional experience would also qualify.” Id. Patent Owner contends that” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s construction, it contends “the Board need not resolve this claim construction dispute because Petitioner’s proposed grounds 1-5 are all insufficient under either construction.” PO Resp. 19. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, we discuss below in Section III.G why we do not reach the claim construction issue presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Holmberg expressly contemplates using its wall box within multi-dwelling units, notes that multi-dwelling wall boxes in the prior art were “typically provided” on every floor, and discloses that the multi-dwelling wall boxes would contain optical couplings for each resident on a given floor. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7, 34; Pet. Reply 8–10. In view of these disclosures, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kiaei that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Holmberg’s wall box in multi-dwelling units and would have seen a need to access the area behind spice tray 230 to connect and disconnect subscribers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Moreover, even if Holmberg were limited to mid-span locations and distributing drop cables, as opposed to distribution cables for individual subscribers, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent Owner does not dispute that a technician would still need periodic access to the area behind splice tray 230 in these mid-span devices. Tr. 38:3–39:1 (counsel agreeing that one would need to access the area behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg, albeit in “rare occasions”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–92; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 7–8. Thus, whether used in the manner contemplated by Petitioner or Patent Owner, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that access to the space behind splice tray 230 in Holmberg would be necessary. With access behind splice tray 230 required, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen a benefit to replacing Holmberg’s fasteners or screws with a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, to allow easier access to the area behind the splice tray. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39 (disclosing that a rotatable splice tray or shelf would “provide[] full and convenient access to the splice tray”)). First, Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei persuasively demonstrate that once the fibers of Holmberg are routed from behind splice tray 230 and the distribution cables spooled on this tray, a technician could not reasonably access fiber optic cables stored behind splice tray 230 without releasing or opening splice tray 230. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1023, 60:20–61:15); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that without a hinged connection, the technician would have to either hold the splice tray of Holmberg with one hand while performing the necessary routing and splicing steps, two screws would need to remain in place (essentially replicating a hinge), or the tray would have to be left to dangle, supported only by the routed and spliced fibers. Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Allegedly New Arguments on Reply Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the benefits of a hinged connection when performing the splicing and routing steps should be dismissed or ignored because they were improperly raised for the first time on reply. Sur-reply 19–20. We disagree. The Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add a hinged connection, such as that disclosed in Battey, in Holmberg and would have seen a benefit to so doing. Pet. 40–44. Petitioner did not change its proposed combination or its stated rationale in its Reply. Rather, in response to Patent Owner’s counter-arguments, Petitioner expands upon the benefits of its proposed combination, i.e., the substitution of a hinged connection in place of fasteners. Pet. Reply 15–21. This is permissible, as a reply may properly expand on or extend previously raised arguments relating to the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that the reply arguments properly relied on the same legal ground, the same prior art references, and same legal argument—the motivation to make the proposed changes to the prior art reference).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,008,483 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,008,483
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00149 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 and 15–17 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over the listed Nerone-based and Zhang-based combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “had, at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner contends this is a similar definition as “provided by Petitioner” but Petitioner’s definition is “overbroad in several respects, as explained by Dr. Ducharme,” including allowing an individual with no experience in LEDs or LED devices to be a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). Petitioner contends that “[t]here is no meaningful dispute over a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 1. We apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires specific experience with LED circuit design, and, thus, more closely aligns with the level of skill reflected in the ’400 patent and the prior art of record. However, if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, our Decision would not be affected.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no special constructions are necessary.” Pet. 8; Pet. Reply 2. “Patent Owner has applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms.” PO Resp. 8. Upon review of the record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Patent Owner’s Contention that Martin is not Available as Prior Art” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The statute governing the formerly available CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The language in § 311(b) implies that, unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to prior art challenges solely under § 102(a). Patent Owner relies, inter alia, on Infobridge, but that case deals with public accessibility under § 102(b). Infobridge, 929 F. 3d at 1368–69. The parties do not cite to any Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in an appeal from an IPR. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication, “Joshi”, was available as prior art in an IPR).” slip op. at 11

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

    “provide a specific numerical analysis of the number of LEDs necessary to match a value of the DC output voltage in Nerone. PO Resp. 31–32. Based on Dr. Baker’s testimony, Petitioner provides several factors that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered when designing Nerone’s circuitry to satisfy the “matching” requirement of limitation 7(f). Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 120). Dr. Baker supports his testimony concerning the knowledge of these factors by one of ordinary skill with reference to disclosures in Cross and Martin. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–123. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Ducharme dispute that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to consider these factors when designing Nerone’s circuit. See PO Resp. 30–43; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 89–106. Petitioner then explains how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used these factors to apply the teachings of Martin to configure Nerone’s circuitry so that “the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs [] approximately match[es] the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Pet. 21; id. at 20–21; see also Ex. 1107 ¶ 29 (“a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood and would have been capable of determining the appropriate number of LEDs based on the application and design of Nerone’s system such that the forward voltage drop of the LEDs . . . matches the rectified AC voltage output . . . to mitigate against overdriving or underdriving the LEDs.” (citing Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 30–31, Fig. 2)). For these reasons, we find that it was not necessary for Petitioner to provide a specific numerical calculation of the number of LEDs in its proposed modification of Nerone. We also agree with Petitioner that “matching the input voltage to the forward voltage of the LEDs had become a matter of routine optimization.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner contends that this statement is “vague and conclusory.” Sur-reply 12–13. Petitioner, however, supports this statement with the testimony of Dr. Baker. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–123. Dr. Baker’s testimony, which we credit, is corroborated by both Cross and Martin. See id. (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 2, 21, 22 Fig. 5; Ex. 1074 ¶ 30). In particular, Cross specifically discloses that “[t]he number of LEDs employed will vary with the intended lighting application and the value of the rectified DC voltage, wherein optimization of such is well within the skill of those in the art.” Ex. 1074 ¶ 30. Patent Owner does not dispute Cross’s statement that optimizing the number of LEDs is within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 40. Martin chooses the number of LEDs “such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED . . . is low enough so as to not damage the LEDs.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 22. It also specifically discloses that “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series.” Id. (emphasis added). Consequently, Martin uses “voltage matching” to determine the number of LEDs so as not to damage the individual LEDs. See also Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–124 (Dr. Baker explaining that a skilled artisan “configuring Nerone’s circuit 400 would have recognized that the forward voltage of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the rectified AC voltage output of the above-described LED driver circuit.” Id. ¶ 124.). Martin’s disclosure, thus, aligns with the reason for “matching” described in the ’400 patent. Ex. 1001, 2:24–35.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,687,400 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,687,400
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00052 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23 are unpatentable: claims 2–5, 7, 13, 21, and 23 as obvious over Birrell and Schultz; claims 11–12 as obvious over Piepgras and Kasegi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 6

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

    “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party contends that any terms of the ’251 patent require express construction, with each party relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim term. PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “10A–C, the reflective coating is folded and shaped to form non-planar reflectors. Ex. 1046 ¶ 49; PO Resp. 15–16; Sur-Reply 4–5. We agree with Petitioner, however, that the reflector embodiments depicted in Figures 10A–C are just one potential way of utilizing a reflective layer in Schultz, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that use of an unfolded reflective layer is contemplated, and would be beneficial in, the planar embodiments of Schultz, such as the planar embodiment depicted in Figure 1. Pet. Reply 3–4, 7; Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (“By using reflective surfaced materials, such as multilayered optical film, for the insulative layer 34 in the embodiments described herein, the light reflected from the attached LED dies has a higher probability of being reflected toward” a focusing element) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15

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

    “to use a reflective coating or substrate in Birrell because “the use of a reflective substrate to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further contends that Schultz expressly discloses that reflective coatings are beneficial as they prevent light from an LED die being “unutilized due to absorption or scattering of the light.” Id. at 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1046 ¶ 48); Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (Schultz explaining that “reflective surfaced materials” provide a “higher probability” that light reflected from the LEDs will reach the focusing element). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a reflective substrate in Birrell in view of Birrell’s expressed desire for a uniform optical reflection to provide a uniform light source. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18; Ex. 1022 ¶ 81; Ex. 1023, 16:16–45). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a reflective substrate in Birrell because this would have entailed “the use of known components and mounting techniques to produce the predictable result of an LED circuit that benefited from known properties of reflective base structures, as suggested by Schultz and the knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,251 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,251
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01541 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–13, 15–17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over the cited combinations of Dowling, Mueller, Okuno, Nortrup, Yan, and Martin.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1– 4, 6–8, 11–13, 15–17, and 19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits in the context of lighting control systems. An increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 14. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’001 patent and prior art of record. We therefore adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Under the correct claim construction, Dowling discloses this limitation because Dowling discloses several examples of two-way switch 190 turning on or off LED circuits, independent of other LED circuits. For example, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that Dowling’s color wash mode (selected by switch 190) discloses this limitation by referring to LEDs that “cycle . . . through the full color spectrum,” turning different colored LEDs on or off. Ex. 1033 ¶ 26 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 44, 103 (“If two LEDs were used . . . with circuitry to turn each color on or off, four colors could be produced.”) (emphasis added)). As another example, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that switch 190 can be used to select a “static color mode to produce, for example, the color red, then only the red LED will be turned on and the remaining LEDs will be turned off.” Id. ¶ 28 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 103). Finally, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that switch 190 can select a strobing mode to cause LEDs to “alternate[] green and red,” which a POSITA would have understood to cause “at least one color LED circuit to be turned on or off independent of other LED circuits.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not rebut these assertions of Dr. Neikirk. See Sur- reply 7–10. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established that Dowling discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 26

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

    “We begin our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 requires a switch to “independently switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit.” There is no express requirement in the claim that any switching occur independently “of other switches.” In effect, Patent Owner appears to imply that “independently” modifies only the word “switch.” Yet the plain reading of this phrase is that the word “independently” modifies the entire phrase that follows—“switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit.” As such, the plain language of the claim encompasses switching one of the LED circuits on or off independently of another LED circuit. In other words, the switch can turn on or off either LED circuit by itself, without affecting the other LED circuit. Patent Owner even appears to have had the same understanding pre-institution, arguing that one of Dowling’s modes “is simultaneously controlling all the LEDs, not independently switching one LED circuit on or off.” Prelim. Resp. 19. The specification does not inform the meaning of this limitation because it does not include the word “independently”—this term only appears in the claims. And Patent Owner points us to no discussion of independent switching in the specification by another name. At most, Patent Owner refers to two separate claims and a few specification references that possibly mention two separate switches. Sur-reply 3–4. But Patent Owner’s references to claims 11 and 15 are unavailing, as even if claims 11 and 15 mention different switches, Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how this compels the meaning it ascribes to “independently switch.” This is true even though claim 11 itself recites a similar “independently switch” limitation. Further, the specification’s mere mention of different switches is also insufficient to draw any conclusion about whether those switches are independently switched from one another. We therefore find no disavowal, lexicography, or any context that would counsel departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation. As such, we construe “a switch . . . configured to at least one of independently switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit” in claims 1, 6, and 11 to encompass a switch that switches an LED circuit on or off independently of another LED circuit.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,537,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,537,001
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01345 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 9–11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hack and Garcia, Hack, Garcia, and Cordelli, or Hack and Porter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would mean someone who, at the time of the invention in February 2004, had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–48). Petitioner contends that there is little difference between these definitions and that Patent Owner does not tie any of its arguments to the minor differences. Reply 1–2. We agree. However, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill because we are persuaded that it is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’252 patent and prior art of record, except that we delete the phrase “or more” to avoid including ambiguity in the definition of the level of skill. The outcome of this decision would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Because the intrinsic record7 does not assist us with interpreting the term “folded,” we turn to the extrinsic evidence, including Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary definitions and expert testimony. As mentioned above, Patent Owner supplied two dictionary definitions for “fold.” See Exs. 2006, 2007. But these definitions are from non-technical sources and are non-contemporaneous with the ’252 patent’s priority date, and are thus of limited relevance to our analysis. Reply 14 n.7. As for expert testimony, Patent Owner’s expert submits that “[a] POSITA would understand that folding a substrate requires bending the substrate so that one part of the substrate is in full contact with another part of the substrate.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 81. However, Patent Owner’s expert provides no evidence or explanation for this conclusory assertion, so we give it little weight. See id.; PO Resp. 18–19; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Further, as we will discuss in detail below, the prior art upon which 7 The parties do not address the prosecution history. Petitioner relies explicitly discloses a substrate that is flexible enough to be folded. See, e.g., Pet. 40; Ex. 1005 ¶ 76 (“[T]he display 106 could be thin and flexible enough to . . . fold into a housing 102[.]”). Thus, apart from explaining the errors in Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we determine that it is unnecessary for us to further analyze the proper scope of this term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Because the intrinsic record7 does not assist us with interpreting the term “folded,” we turn to the extrinsic evidence, including Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary definitions and expert testimony. As mentioned above, Patent Owner supplied two dictionary definitions for “fold.” See Exs. 2006, 2007. But these definitions are from non-technical sources and are non-contemporaneous with the ’252 patent’s priority date, and are thus of limited relevance to our analysis. Reply 14 n.7. As for expert testimony, Patent Owner’s expert submits that “[a] POSITA would understand that folding a substrate requires bending the substrate so that one part of the substrate is in full contact with another part of the substrate.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 81. However, Patent Owner’s expert provides no evidence or explanation for this conclusory assertion, so we give it little weight. See id.; PO Resp. 18–19; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Garbuzov discloses stacked LEDs, with a coating on one of those LEDs, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, which we discuss in detail below. To briefly summarize, first, we agree with Petitioner (and Patent Owner does not dispute) that Figure 39 (above) of the ’252 patent depicts an OLED. Second, we agree that each of the sets of layers Petitioner identifies in Garbuzov as an OLED has a similar structure as the OLED in Figure 39 of the ’252 patent, and is therefore an OLED. See, e.g., Ex. 1089, 48:3–6. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the phosphor layer 114 is applied to one of Garbuzov’s OLEDs within the stacked set of OLEDs, as shown in Garbuzov Figure 2, and therefore, that Garbuzov discloses coating an LED with a phosphor. Finally, we agree with Petitioner that phosphor layer 114 produces a change in color because Garbuzov describes phosphor layer 114 as “red downconversion phosphor layer 114.” See Ex. 1016, 3:32–33.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,252 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,252
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00846 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Swinger, Weikert, and Benedikt (claims 1–8), and with L’Esperance added (claims 9–12).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties present compelling evidence that those of skill in the art would include individuals with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 25; PO Resp. 8. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such experience. Rather, teams of individuals with design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. Accordingly, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as optical engineering, with experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., Ph.D. or five or more years to compensate for lesser degrees). Such individuals 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.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner provides constructions for the terms “cataract incision” and “a delivery system for delivering the laser beam to the target tissue to form a cataract incision.” Pet. 7–9. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “cataract incision.” PO Resp. 10–11. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, including the fact that neither party disputes that Weikert expressly discloses cataract incisions under either parties’ interpretation of that term, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “A petition must “identify with particularity the grounds for institution and evidence supporting such grounds,” including “the prior art relied upon and evidence that it qualifies as such.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). The Petition identifies the grounds for institution and the evidence supporting such grounds, and presents evidence that Weikert qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 5–6, 27–28. For example, Petitioner and Dr. Lubatschowski assert that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY “is a quarterly review series comprising chapters written by well-known specialists,” and that Weikert was included in the 2005 edition of CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY as Chapter 14: Refractive Keratotomy: Does it Have a Future Role in Refractive Surgery? Ex. 1001 ¶ 73; Pet. 5–6, 27–28.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Benedikt describes its combined topometer/OCT imaging device as providing a “previously unattainable comprehensive topometerical/topographical illustration of the cornea” and discloses using this comprehensive data to automate corneal laser surgery. Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 39, 46; Pet. 55–56. In contrast to the comprehensive illustration of the cornea provided by Benedikt’s system, Petitioner demonstrates that HeNe beams are limited to visualizing the surface of eye tissue at a single point. Ex. 1070 ¶¶ 32–34; Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1073, 254:2–14; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 29–31. As Petitioner proposes to use the system of Swinger to make incisions in the cornea, which Benedikt’s system can image comprehensively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to implement Benedikt’s imaging device to aid Swinger’s corneal surgery procedure(s). (2)” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,376,356 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,376,356
• TCT Mobile (US), Inc. / TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00599 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Morita and the knowledge of a skilled artisan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Baker testifies that “[b]ecause the SE1 signal differentiates between PS/2 and USB interfaces, the SE1 signal in Casebolt . . . identifies a power source type.” Ex. 1026 ¶ 16. Dr. Baker relies on the undisputed facts that “the PS/2 interface provides a maximum current of 275 mA” and “according to the USB specification, a high-power function can draw up to 500 mA, while a low-power function may draw only up to 100mA.” Id. As discussed above, although Dr. Fernald testifies that Casebolt uses SE1 to distinguish between PS/2 and USB and that PS/2 and USB have different current limits, he offers no explanation for his conclusion that Casebolt does not suggest use of SE1 to identify a power source type. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 67. We credit Dr. Baker’s testimony over that of Dr. Fernald on this point because it is consistent with the evidence that USB and PS/2 have different current limits. Consequently, we find that Casebolt shows using an SE1 signal to identify a power source type was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 35

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2030. Paper 28, 1. Petitioner contends Patent Owner filed Exhibit 2030 with its Sur-reply in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), which prohibits the filing of new evidence other than deposition transcripts with the Sur-reply. Id. at 1–2. We do not rely on Exhibit 2030 in this Decision. Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 43

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

    “Patent Owner also submits “the preambles for claims 1 and 8 are limiting because they provide antecedent basis to ‘the mobile device’ in the rest of the claims and further limit the claimed ‘mobile device’ to one ‘configurable for use in a wireless telecommunications network.’” 7 Dr. Baker applies this construction in his Reply Declaration. See, e.g., Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 11–12. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:49–50, 12:30–32). We need not reach the question of whether the preamble is limiting because, as explained below in our analysis of claim 1, there is no dispute that Morita discloses the subject matter of the preambles of claims 1 and 8. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 over Morita and/or the” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,834,586 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,834,586
• Rimfrost As v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2022 · IPR2020-01532 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art, because the combined teachings establish every limitation and a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Collateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the context of patent claims, collateral estoppel applies “[i]f the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity.” Id. Petitioner points to no prior decision of the Board where the issue of whether it would have been obvious to denature a krill product and then store it for 1 to 24 months before extraction was at issue. Moreover, to demonstrate that the added limitation would have been obvious, Petitioner relies heavily on the disclosures of Budziński, which was not at issue or analyzed in the prior proceedings. Pet. 45; PO Resp. 13 (asserting that the prior art in the previous proceedings “did not include Budziński”). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated that collateral estoppel applies in this proceeding. slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Jaczynski dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2015 ¶ 8 (“For purposes of this proceeding, I will accept [Petitioner’s] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].”). Upon review of the ’169 patent and the prior art of record, we find Petitioner’s uncontested definition reasonable and supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, we adopt this definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “oil,” “denature lipases and phospholipases,” “polar solvent,” “astaxanthin esters,” “krill meal,” and “freshly harvested.” Pet. 32–39. With respect to “krill meal,” Petitioner contends this term should be construed to mean “processed krill with reduced water content from which krill oil can be extracted.” Id. at 38. Patent Owner provides proposed constructions for the terms “krill meal” and “denature lipases and phospholipases.” PO Resp. 7–12. With respect to “krill meal,” Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s proposed construction of “krill meal” is overbroad and ignores the ordinary and customary meaning of a meal, which is a “powder formed by particle size reduction of a starting material.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 14–16). Thus, Patent Owner construes “krill meal” to mean “a krill powder resulting from the processing of krill.” Id. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that no terms of the ’169 patent require construction in order to resolve the disputes in this proceeding. See 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) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “As noted by Patent Owner, the evidence of record suggests that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that krill processing—both denaturation and krill oil extraction—could be successfully performed on board a ship. Ex. 1037, 3–4; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Dr. Tallon testifying 12 Because Patent Owner relies on various disclosures of Breivik II as potentially counselling against combining the references to arrive at the claimed subject matter, we will consider these teachings in our Decision. We do not, however, consider Breivik II or Petitioner’s arguments with respect to this reference in determining whether the prior art teaches or suggests every limitation of the challenged claims. during cross-examination that flammable solvents can be successfully managed on a ship). At the same time, Petitioner and Dr. Tallon explain that the dangers of using flammable solvents on a vessel are still a relevant consideration. Ex. 1086 ¶¶ 97–99; Ex. 2019, 49:18–25 (Tallon Deposition). Moreover, Dr. Tallon also persuasively identifies several other benefits of land-based krill oil extraction, such as the reduced costs of outfitting each ship with its own processing equipment (which is often essentially identical to that used on land), the ability to extract krill oil to meet specific demand in the market, and cheaper access to fuel. Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 173, 443); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (noting that market forces and design needs can provide the reason to combine or modify prior art references). Patent Owner presents no argument or evidence to refute these additional benefits of land-based extractions, other than to note that Dr. Tallon does not cite any specific documents to support his assertions. PO Resp. 45 (Patent Owner noting the testimony of Dr. Tallon). Upon review of the evidence of record, we credit the testimony of Dr. Tallon that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in addition to avoiding the need to manage the use of flammable solvents at sea, there were a number of other benefits to land-based extractions of krill oil that would have motivated a skilled artisan to store the denatured krill products for between 1 and 24 months, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,644,169 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,644,169
• Sealed Air Corporation v. Ranpak Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01249 · APJ Wesley B Derrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Kirkpatrick; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner fails to cite any authority to support its argument that we should, in effect, disregard Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he is not a person of ordinary skill in what Patent Owner contends is the relevant field. See PO Resp.; PO Sur-Reply. Patent Owner’s counsel similarly was unable to identify any such authority at the hearing. Tr. 42:9–15. Further, Mr. Klass’ testimony was not that he is not a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather that his opinions set forth in his earlier declaration would not be different under the level of ordinary skill as defined by Mr. May. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 4–5. On this record, we find Mr. Klass’ testimony well-supported as it pertains to relevant issues and see no reason to summarily disregard it. See Exs. 1002, 1028. Complete overlap between a witness’ technical qualifications in the field of the invention is not necessary for the witness’ testimony to be admissible. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“CTPG”)5 at 34 (“There is . . . no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.”). Nor must they themselves be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but only that they are “qualified in the pertinent art.” CTPG at 34 (citing Sundance, Inc. v. DelMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 136364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Mr. Klass’ education includes a minor in Pulp & Paper Technology (Ex. 1006) and his lengthy experience in the pulp and paper industry includes work—as a process engineer—involving splicing and corrugators (Ex. 1002 ¶ 8). Mr. Klass has the “knowledge, skill, experience, training, [and] education” of a “specialized” nature that is likely to “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Accordingly, we find Mr. Klass has sufficient relevant technical expertise to consider and weigh his testimony as we have in this decision. See SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have included those with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or paper engineering with at least a year’s experience relating to producing cushioning materials, dunnage pads, and other protective packaging. As admitted by Patent Owner, production of such materials using kraft paper stock was known. PO Resp. 14. As to the use of double-sided adhesive, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it was unknown to the person of ordinary skill in the art because using double-sided tape to join rolls of sheet stock was known in the wider field of paper processing and we find that field reasonably includes producing paper cushioning products, and that such related knowledge reasonably would also have been within the knowledge of a skilled artisan in the “cushioning conversion machine” field as the same or similar paper cushioning products are produced. Moreover, regardless of whether double-sided tape was used in what Patent Owner contends is the “cushioning conversion machine” field, Mr. May’s testimony is limited to it not being used in that field, not that double-sided tape itself was not known to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–57. It reasonably follows that a person having knowledge of double-sided tape would also have knowledge of joining together sheets of paper or other stock using double-sided tape. Further, to the extent that Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on “cushioning conversion machines” differing from paper processing machines that produce paper cushioning products, on this record, there is insufficient evidence of a meaningful difference in their complexity, size, or operation. For example, Patent Owner relies heavily on the paper processing machines including machinery to allow splicing on the fly, but the prior art also teaches that non-continuous roll-to-roll splicing can be used. See Ex. 1010, 1:13–16 (disclosing that a splicing tape system “is applicable both to systems in which the splice is made on the fly and to systems in which the splice is made while the running web is stationary”); Ex.1017, 1:15–19 (disclosing that “[t]he splicing operation can be performed in a static or a dynamic mode.”). As to size, similarly, Patent Owner relies on the machinery for paper making or producing corrugated cardboard being larger than “cushioning conversion machines,” but there is no clear distinction between the two as to size, as discussed below. Also, there is no evidence that paper processing machines forming paper cushioning products from paper itself do not do so in the same general manner as the ’096 patent. Accordingly, finding no meaningful distinction to “cushioning conversion machines,” we discern no meaningful difference in the knowledge of the skilled artisan as it relates to the challenged claims. Moreover, to the extent that there would be a narrower “cushioning conversion machine” field that did not include the use of double-sided tape, as Patent Owner contends, there would be no difference in the outcome of this case. As to obviousness, the scope of analogous prior art is not limited to the field of inventor’s endeavor, but also includes references that are “still reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As discussed below, we find Kirkpatrick reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” slip op. at 12

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

    “On this record, we determine that the preamble’s recitation of “sheet stock material for use in a cushioning conversion machine” is a statement of intended use and does not constitute a limitation. In doing so, we must construe the meaning of the term “cushioning conversion machine.” In construing “cushioning conversion machine,” we note there is no guidance elsewhere in the remaining claim language as to its meaning, including in other claims, and so turn to the specification of the ’096 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13, 1315. The ’096 patent states that “[c]ushioning conversion machines convert [paper] sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). The ’096 patent also identifies its “invention [as] relat[ing] to machines for converting sheet stock material into a dunnage product.” Id. at 1:15–16 (Field of the Invention). Figures 1 and 2 are identified as top plan and side elevational views of a cushioning conversion machine. Id. at 3:57–63. The ’096 patent discloses that the “operation of the [cushioning] conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller, also in a well-known manner” (emphasis added). Id. at 6:42–44. The ’096 patent provides no disclosure as to the size of the cushioning conversion machine or the sheet stock material that it converts into cushioning dunnage product. See Ex. 1001.” slip op. at 20

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

    “On this record, Mr. May’s testimony of what “cushioning conversion machine” means in the field of paper dunnage machines fails to bear the weight required to limit the term as Patent Owner proposes. The ’096 patent identifies “cushioning conversion machines” to be machines that “convert sheet stock material . . . into a cushioning dunnage product.” Ex. 1001, 1:23–25 (Background). This is in effect the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves identifying a machine that converts feedstock into cushioning. Further, we find it consistent with the ’096 patent as a whole. Mr. May’s contrary testimony, as discussed above, lacks sufficient evidentiary basis to support Patent Owner’s contended construction over the plain and ordinary meaning. In effect, the basis for Mr. May’s testimony is limited to a showing that the meaning of the term encompasses a machine such as shown in the ’096 patent’s Figure 1 and 2. Mr. May’s testimony as to the PadPak machine being a “popular cushioning conversion machine[]” only goes to establishing that “cushioning conversion machine” encompasses similar machines, not that the term would be understood to be limited to the PadPak machine. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65–66. As to “cushioning conversion machines” being stop/start machines, the ’096 patent’s states that “the conversion machine 10 may be controlled by a controller” (emphasis 7 Elsewhere Patent Owner cites a number of its patents for using the term “cushioning conversion machine,” but this only supports that Patent Owner uses the term. See PO Resp. 27. added), not that it must be. Ex. 1001, 6:42–43. As to size, as discussed above, the ’096 patent provides no limitation as to the size of the apparatus or the sheet stock material. Petitioner highlights that another of Patent Owner’s patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,200,251 B1 (Ex. 1026, “the ’251 patent”), discloses “that in a ‘preferred cushioning conversion machine, the stock supply assembly is adapted to supply stock material which is between 25 to 35 inches wide’” (emphasis added). Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1026, 2:56–59). Petitioner also highlights that the ’251 patent was filed before the ’096 patent’s priority date and names the ’096 patent’s inventor among its inventors. Id.; compare Ex. 1026, codes (22), (75), with Ex. 1001, codes (22), (75). Such disclosure of a preferred embodiment in this circumstance is reasonable evidence that a skilled artisan would understand that a “cushioning conversion machine” included those “adapted to supply stock material . . . between 25 and 35 inches wide,” but not that such machines were limited to using such widths. The relevance of this is that the sheet stock material used is not manifestly distinct from the sheet stock material used for corrugators, ranging from 35 to 110 inches in width, where Patent Owner contends corrugators are distinct from “cushioning conversion machines.” See Ex. 2003, 95:22–96:6 (Mr. Klass testifying that the “width of commercial corrugators could be anywhere from 35 to 110 inches.”); PO Resp. 33–34 (relying on Mr. Klass’ testimony). Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence of a clear distinction in weight. Patent Owner and Mr. May rely on Mr. Klass’ testimony as to the weight of paper rolls for corrugators, focusing solely on testimony as to the weight of large rolls and ignoring that the testimony also set forth that “[s]ome corrugators use smaller rolls.” PO Resp. 34; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–79; Pet. Reply 14–15; see also Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 21–22 (Mr. Klass’ testimony that “web feed rolls at the lower end of that range would be especially well suited for use in a cushioning conversion machine, even under [Patent Owner’s] narrow definition of such a machine” and that “my testimony certainly was not that Kirkpatrick’s web feed rolls would weigh tons.”). In sum, on this record, we determine that “cushioning conversion” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,756,096 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,756,096
• Peag LLC (D/B/A Jlab Audio) / Audio Partnership LLC et al. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2020-01213 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kobayashi and Kwon; substitute claims 10–14, 16, and 17 are allowed, while the motion to amend is denied as to claim 15.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “On this issue, we agree with Petitioner. Mr. Gardner explains that the skilled artisan “would further recognize that the output conductor can be comprised of various materials . . . . which could be metal or any various materials [and] the shape of the output conductor is not particularly limited.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 322. Mr. Gardner further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize, not only that metal foil conductors could be inserted into these grooves without difficulty, but also that the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors.” Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53, 70. We recognize Patent Owner’s argument that numerous factors must be considered and that conventional battery design does not necessarily translate to button cell designs (PO Resp. 20– 21), but as Mr. Gardner testifies, “this may be true in some cases, [but] the lessons and advantages of using techniques from conventional battery design and applying it to button cell would be obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Ex. 1041 ¶ 103. He continues to explain that “[n]aturally, such transposition of techniques would require some modification and adjustments. . . . [and that] each of these adjustments, . . . would be well within the skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. ¶ 104 (describing, for example, “reducing the thickness of the conductor plates of Kobayashi”). We credit Mr. Gardner’s testimony. Moreover, Patent Owner does not allege that any proposed modification would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art or explain how any of the “difficulties in manufacturing a button cell” (PO Resp. 52) are relevant to the proposed substitution of a metal foil for a metal terminal electrode plate. See generally id.; Sur-reply. Thus, based on the evidence and argument of record, we determine that the combination of Kobayashi and Kwon, and the general knowledge of those skilled in the art, would suggest the use of foil in place of Kobayashi’s terminal electrode plates, and that the foil would bear flat on one of the lateral ends of the electrode separator assembly.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’858 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or a similar field, such as materials engineering, chemical engineering, or physics with at least five years of experience in the field of battery design and manufacturing. A person with a master’s degree in one of the above fields could have less practical experience of approximately three years. A person with a PhD could have less practical experience, about two years. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard. DI 20 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed definition). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Decision on Institution because neither party disputes that determination and because the level of skill is consistent with the record. See PO Resp. 7 (person of ordinary skill “would possess a Bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or chemical engineering or equivalent [and] would also have two to three” slip op. at 12

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

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ respective constructions. Additionally, Patent Owner, during the hearing, expressed a general view that claim construction was unlikely to affect the parties’ positions. In particular, Patent Owner states that “[o]ur position is that really nothing turns on claim construction. You don’t have to engage in claim construction in this case.” Tr. 56:18–20, 56:20–22 (explaining that limitations were submitted for construction “to gain some benefit in the co-pending litigations.”). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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) (applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) in the context of an inter partes review). Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ claim construction position, we determine that none of the identified claim terms require construction to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are not persuaded that the identified portions of Mr. Gardner’s Supplemental Declaration are improper. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known metal foils for the metal conductor plates of Kobayashi in order to reduce the size of inactive materials and improve performance. Pet. 69–70 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 323). In its Response, Patent Owner argued, among other things, that the metal foil lacks the requisite rigidity to support the remaining components of the winding axis core (PO Resp. 26–27, 31) and that because metal connecting plates 4a and 5b are positioned within recesses of insulating plates 8 and 9, replacing the metal connecting plates with metal foils would result in an unreliable connection because the metal foil would become embedded within the grooves of the insulating plates (id. at 28–29, 30). Mr. Gardner’s supplemental testimony specifically addresses Dr. Peckerar’s and Patent Owner’s concerns that metal foils would be unsuitable in Kobayashi due to their flexibility and thickness as compared to the insulating plates. Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 53 (“the depth of the grooves can be altered in order to better accommodate metal foil output conductors”), 70, 71 (explaining that it is the winding core that provides structure not the output conductor plates), 81, 86 (explaining that the person of ordinary skill in the art could either adjust the size of the output conductors or the depth of the cavities themselves), 87. Therefore, Mr. Gardner’s testimony that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood how to account for the technical challenges Patent Owner identified properly responds to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Patent Owner response. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Mr. Gardner’s testimony on this issue.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,799,858 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,799,858

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.