• CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · PGR2021-00054 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · PGR · Remand

  Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable because Sample C was not proven publicly available as prior art, and the original decision found the remaining grounds insufficient.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s evidence in Kuntz (Ex. 1026), the Annual Report (Ex. 1028), Masuko (Ex. 1029), and Pfaff (Ex. 1034) is insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public before the effective filing date of the ’861 patent. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26. Kuntz, the Annual Report, Masuko, and Pfaff may support a finding that the Xirallic® line of products was available to the public, but these documents do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public. We also agree with Patent Owner that the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010), Certificates of Analysis (Exs. 1011–1017), and Material Safety Data Sheet (Ex. 1025) are insufficient to show that Xirallic® Sample C was available to the public. Petitioner has not asserted, nor do we find, that any of these documents refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. See Final Dec. 26–27. Regardless of how the Technical Data Sheets were used in the Opposition against the European counterpart of the ’861 patent (Exs. 1040, 1041) and during the prosecution of the application from which the ’861 patent issued (Ex. 1003, 102–104), the Technical Data Sheets do not refer to or describe the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Moreover, as noted by Patent Owner, the Technical Data Sheets (Exs. 1005–1010) indicate that they are “preliminary” and Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Technical Data Sheets were ever issued to the public, as opposed to just issued internally. See PO Resp. 18–19. We also find persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that the Technical Data Sheets are preliminary because other, later-dated technical data sheets (Exs. 2012, 2013) lack the “preliminary” label and list characteristics that are different from those in Exhibits 1005–1010. See PO Resp. 19 (comparing, e.g., Ex. 1009 and Ex. 2013; Ex. 1005 and Ex. 2012). The Technical Data Sheets may support a finding that the Xirallic® products they describe existed as of the dates on the documents, but they do not support a finding that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was available to the public.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “witnesses. See Elbit Systems of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 (1982)). We have reviewed the witness testimony in the record and, more particularly, Mr. Choi’s deposition answers regarding Petitioner’s purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C came. We find that Mr. Choi’s responses cast doubt on the credibility of his declaration testimony, namely with regard to the public availability of Sample C. Mr. Choi represented that he was involved in the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken. Ex. 2011, 48:1–23. Mr. Choi stated that he instructed Petitioner’s marketing team manager to buy the sample from a distributor of Patent Owner’s products located in Europe. Id. at 48:24–49:4. Mr. Choi stated that he has evidence of the transaction, but refused to reveal the name of the company from which Petitioner purportedly purchased the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 49:5–50:3) and refused to produce an email in his possession that would corroborate his testimony regarding Petitioner’s acquisition of the product (id. at 50:8–16, 51:10–23). Mr. Choi represented that he does not remember how much Petitioner paid for Sample B. Id. at 56:4–5. Mr. Choi admitted that the entity from which Petitioner acquired the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken is “not currently a Merck distributor” (Ex. 2011, 50:4–7) and was not “a Merck distributor at the time” that “samples B and C were purchased” (id. at 51:25–52:2). According to Mr. Choi, the company is a “former distributor” of Patent Owner’s products. Id. at 52:3–6. Mr. Choi did not know, according to his testimony, when that unnamed entity first obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:7–10) and he stated that he did not have personal knowledge of how the entity obtained the lot of Xirallic® (id. at 52:12–19). Instead, Mr. Choi assumed the entity was “able to obtain the sample through the routine course or process” the entity uses “to take samples or get samples.” Id. at 52:12–19. Mr. Choi believed the sample of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was sealed when Petitioner received it because samples from dealers are sealed, and he remembered observing that the package was from a dealer. Id. at 52:24– 54:25. However, Mr. Choi admitted that he did not obtain a technical data sheet or certificate of analysis for the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken. Id. at 59:6–11. Mr. Choi also answered questions regarding Petitioner’s purchase of Samples D and H. Ex. 2011, 62:20–66:8, 67:7–9, 73:12–13, 73:17–22. Similar to his testimony regarding Samples B and C, Mr. Choi admitted withholding an email regarding the purchase of the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken. Id. at 62:20–63:9. Mr. Choi also admitted that he did not know how Akzo USA or Axalta obtained the Xirallic® the companies sold to him, and admitted that Akzo USA was not a distributor of Patent Owner’s products at the time Petitioner purchased the product. Id. at 63:10–66:8, 73:17–22. Mr. Choi also admitted that Petitioner did not pay Akzo USA for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample D was taken, and did not pay Axalta for the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample H was taken. Id. at 67:7–9, 73:12–13. Although Petitioner presents declaration testimony from Mr. Choi representing that he purchased the lot of Xirallic® from which Samples B and C were taken in October 2011 (Ex. 1004 ¶ 16), Mr. Choi’s declaration testimony lacks corroborating evidence, and his deposition testimony does not support that the product was available to the public, as we found in our Final Written Decision. See Final Dec. 27–28. Notably, Petitioner produced corroborating evidence for Mr. Choi’s acquisition of Samples A, H, and I. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 13 (citing Ex. 1047), 18 (citing Exs. 1024, 1025). However, Mr. Choi withheld similar evidence for the Xirallic® lots from which Samples B, C, and D were taken. See Ex. 2011, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 62:20– 63:9; Final Dec. 28. As Patent Owner argues, there is “no information to determine when a contract was established, that there was consideration for the exchange, that the product was available to be delivered when the alleged transaction took place, or even when the product was delivered. Choi has no memory of what was paid for the product.” Sur-Reply 24–25; see also PO Resp. 13–14; PO Br. Rem. 2–4.” slip op. at 34

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

    “Based on the evidence discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C was available to the public. Regardless of whether a company avoids wasting shelf life of its products (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15–16), there is no persuasive evidence in the record showing that the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken was released from quality control and then made available to the public by Patent Owner. Mr. Choi’s testimony shows that Petitioner obtained the lot of Xirallic® from which Sample C was taken in an atypical manner (i.e., not from Patent Owner or one of Patent Owner’s current distributors) (Ex. 2011, 49:5–50:7, 50:8–16, 51:10–23, 51:25–52:6, 52:12– 19), and there is no evidence in the record to show that the lot of Xirallic® was intended for sale, rather than for experimental use only or for some other restricted use. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Sample C qualifies as prior art against the ’861 patent, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’861 patent is unpatentable over the grounds relying on Sample C.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,647,861 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,647,861
• Innoscience (Zhuhai) Technology Company, Ltd. / Innoscience America, Inc. v. Efficient Power Conversion CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2023-01382 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 were not shown unpatentable under any of five § 103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish sufficient motivation to modify or combine the prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “A petition must identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) Here, Petitioner merely provides general assertions about multiple references, without clearly identifying how, or why a POSITA would have been motivated, to modify the processes disclosed in those references to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, the Petition does not state with particularity that Saxler’s particular technique for etching is to be used instead of Beach’s etching step when substituting Beach’s self-aligned process for Saxler’s two mask process. Nor does the Petitioner provide a sufficient reason, absent hindsight, why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the references to result in a process that forms Saxler’s Modified Figure 1A. Thus, for these additional reasons, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Saxler, Beach, and Shenoy.” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties agree that the differences between the definitions do not impact the analysis. Resp. 11; Reply 2. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’347 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’347 patent and the prior art. We also note that our Decision would be the same under either parties’ definition.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Shealy states that he understands paragraph 52 to mean that it is “fair game to pull the recess out of any of those figures [Figures 1A through 6].” Ex. 2004, 39:12–21. Dr. Shealy, however, also clarifies that “[a]s I said before, I think you could take all the embodiments and bring in which ones you want, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.” Ex. 2004, 40:24–41:1. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that Dr. Shealy’s “statement to modify the reference depending on what you're trying to accomplish” means that “a POSITA may modify with reason to do so. A POSITA would have removed Saxler’s recess to obtain the benefits of enhancement-mode.” Tr. 19:19–25. Again, the Petition does not provide a reason why a POSITA would have removed Saxler’s gate recess.” slip op. at 28

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

    “remove the recess in Saxler Figure 1A to arrive at the allegedly enhancement mode transistor of Modified Figure 1A. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions in its Reply and at the hearing, the Petition makes no argument that a POSITA would have removed the recess from Saxler Figure 1A to realize the benefits of an enhancement mode transistor. See Reply 4–5; Pet. 24–68. Rather, the Petition merely asserts that a POSITA would have understood that the gate recess of Figure 1A is optional without providing any persuasive reason why a POSITA would have removed the gate recess but retained the sloped sidewalls of Figure 1A. Pet. 25, 40, 45. For example, Petitioner asserts that Saxler’s gate contact may be “recessed or non-recessed” and that when the gate recess shown in Figure 1A is not utilized, Saxler would have the structure of Saxler Modified Figure 1A. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81; Ex. 1007 ¶ 52, 66); see also Pet. 40, 45 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 52). Neither of these paragraphs provide sufficient motivation to a POSITA to remove the gate recess from Saxler Figure 1A. Saxler paragraph 52 states: Exemplary devices according to some embodiments of the present invention are schematically illustrated in FIGS. 1A through 6. Thus, while embodiments of the present invention are described herein with reference to a recessed gate structure or a non-recessed gate structure, other embodiments of the present invention may include or not include a gate recess. Accordingly, embodiments of the present invention should not be construed as limited to the particular exemplary embodiments described herein but may include any suitable structure having a cap layer and/or passivation layer as described herein. Ex. 1007 ¶ 52. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Shealy states that he understands paragraph 52 to mean that it is “fair game to pull the recess out of any of those figures [Figures 1A through 6].” Ex. 2004, 39:12–21. Dr. Shealy, however, also clarifies that “[a]s I said before, I think you could take all the embodiments and bring in which ones you want, depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.” Ex. 2004, 40:24–41:1. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that Dr. Shealy’s “statement to modify the reference depending on what you're trying to accomplish” means that “a POSITA may modify with reason to do so. A POSITA would have removed Saxler’s recess to obtain the benefits of enhancement-mode.” Tr. 19:19–25. Again, the Petition does not provide a reason why a POSITA would have removed Saxler’s gate recess.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,748,347 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,748,347
• Intel Corporation v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00991 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Micron Technology, Inc. / Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. et al. v. Besang Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00900 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–17 were not shown unpatentable: Lee-based grounds fail on the stackable add-on layer limitation, and Watanabe-based grounds fail on nonvolatile memory, enablement, or motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “meaning in the art. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that, absent an accepted meaning in the art, “we construe a claim term only as broadly as provided for by the patent itself”). Thus, we must attempt to discern the meaning of this term from the claim language itself and from the remainder of the intrinsic record. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Upon review of the parties’ arguments and the intrinsic record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’702 patent does not support a construction of “stackable add-on layer” that encompasses memory cells formed by sequential deposition on a substrate without being formed and then added to a separately formed substrate.” slip op. at 10

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

    “As discussed above, we construe “stackable add-on layer” to not include memory cells that are formed by sequential deposition on or above a substrate without being added to a separately formed substrate. It is undisputed, and indeed it is Petitioner’s assertion, that Lee’s memory devices are formed by sequential deposition. See Pet. 52 (asserting that in Lee “the layers of the array are directly deposited on the layers of each underlying level, and the array is deposited on the interlayer insulating layer formed over a substrate”); see also id. at 70 (“Lee discloses forming vertical memory devices through layer-by-layer sequential deposition on the substrate . . . .”). Therefore, Petitioner does not show that Lee discloses every limitation of independent claim 13 under our claim construction. Thus, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Lee. 3. Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments for these claims do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 54–59. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 15 would have been obvious in view of Lee alone. E. Claims 16 and 17 over Lee and Endoh Petitioner contends the subject matter of claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Lee and Endoh. Pet. 59–69. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to these claims, however, do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to Lee and its monolithic, sequentially deposited memory array. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Lee and Endoh.” slip op. at 18

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

    “combined Lee and Watanabe to achieve improved integration density. Pet. 71. Petitioner concedes, however, that the benefits of Lee’s design related to 3-D integration and improved integration density would be obtained if Lee’s memory structures are formed using either Lee’s monolithic construction method or Watanabe’s alternative stacking method. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 34). Thus, we are not persuaded that improved integration density provides a sufficient rationale for Petitioner’s combination of Lee’s memory device and Watanabe’s stacking method. Petitioner argues that Watanabe’s stacking method “improves the accuracy of the wiring” because the wiring is made “for each planar member.” Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–3). Watanabe also states that its disclosed methods provide “a low interconnection wire resistance.” Ex. 1005, 6:20–23. Petitioner does not, however, explain sufficiently how Watanabe’s stacking method would improve Lee’s device. For example, Petitioner does not address whether the alleged wiring benefit already existed in Lee’s monolithic array or explain how this benefit would also apply to Lee’s particular memory array, which differs in construction and elements from Watanabe’s device. This diminishes Petitioner’s benefits-based motivation to combine arguments. In general, a petitioner need not demonstrate that a particular alternate method would improve a prior art device in order to show a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see Pet. Reply 20 (citing Intel). But here, Petitioner affirmatively invokes improvement of Lee’s device as a reason for the combination, and we must evaluate Petitioner’s contention. Moreover, any relative lack of improvement or benefits must be weighed against any problems the alternative method would introduce. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795–96 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting that simultaneous advantages and disadvantages to a proposed combination must be analyzed to determine whether the disadvantages “outweighed any reason to combine”). Here, as discussed above in more detail with respect to the ground based on Watanabe, the evidence shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Watanabe’s bonding temperature of 900– 1000° C to damage the electronic devices in an underlying substrate. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7; Ex. 2027, 715. The expected damage to Lee’s device, when balanced against the limited evidence of a benefit to the combination,7 outweighs the reason to combine Lee and Watanabe set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 13 would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe. 2. Analysis – Claims 14 and 15 Claims 14 and 15 both depend directly from independent claim 13. Ex. 1001, 12:35–42. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claims 14 and 15 do not remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 13. Pet. 73. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that these claims would have been obvious over Lee and Watanabe.” slip op. at 40

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “We credit the testimony of Dr. Przybylski that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Watanabe’s stacked structure would be severely impacted if bonded at a temperature above 900° C, as disclosed in Watanabe. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 76–77. Dr. Przybylski’s opinion is supported by Dr. Lee’s testimony (Ex. 2028, 123:13–124:7, 125:6–126:7), as well as Watanabe (Ex. 1005, 6:6–14) and Batude (Ex. 2027, 715). As further discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not rebutted Patent Owner’s showing of nonenablement, and Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate that Watanabe was not enabled for bonding temperatures of 900–1000° C, as of the 2004 filing date of the ’702 patent.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,378,702 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,378,702
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00862 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the proposed prior-art combinations and the required motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 25; PO Resp. 9–10. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either 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 nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 6 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13

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

    “summarized above, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to a computer-controlled, OCT-guided laser system. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Swinger and Baikoff to achieve a laser surgical system incorporating an OCT imaging system, that combination still would not have achieved the required “computer system” of the claims and all of its programmed surgical functionality, particularly, using a computer system to construct an anterior capsulotomy cutting region based on the image data. Petitioner relies on the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Swinger’s computer control unit with the missing functionality, thus necessitating an electronic conversion of the steps performed using Swinger’s direct visualization method using a HeNe aiming beam to manually identify a surgical treatment region for laser surgery. Ex. 1039, 34:52–57; Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 55–59, 66. That conversion, however, involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and then implement the planned cataract surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show were known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and to implement a planned cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace or even considered before the invention.” slip op. at 25

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

    “The evidence of record demonstrates, however, that modifying an existing corneal surgery system to image and perform surgery on the lens was not the simple task asserted by Petitioner. For example, in a patent application filed in November 2009, Petitioner asserted that due to the different depth ranges for the laser’s focus, “laser systems designed for corneal procedures do not offer solution[s] for the considerable challenges of performing surgery on the lens of the eye.” Ex. 2007, 4:65–67, 5:30–36, code (22). Similarly, in a different patent filed in December 2008, Petitioner outlined the various challenges in developing laser surgery systems for creating incisions in the lens, including the difficulty in focusing a laser beam that propagates through regions of the eye with different optical properties and different curvatures. Ex. 2014, 15:51–16:18, code (22). This patent then states: Because of all the described hard challenges, corneal surgical laser systems are qualitatively simpler than lens surgical lasers. This is well supported by the fact that even though corneal surgical systems were suggested about 40 years ago, none have been adapted successfully for lens surgery to date. Id. at 16:13–18. During prosecution of another patent filed in 2008, and in responses to office actions filed in 2012 and 2013, Petitioner argued that a corneal OCT system “simply will not work” on the lens and that it would not have been obvious to modify such an OCT system to image the lens. Ex. 2015, 898, 1591, 1788. This was because OCT systems designed to image the lens would be required to deliver and scan an imaging beam “to a depth ten times bigger and a depth range ten times bigger” than an OCT system designed to image the cornea. Id. at 1591. According to Petitioner, “it is not obvious” to modify an OCT imaging system to achieve a depth and scanning range that is ten times larger than that disclosed in the art. Id. at 898 (“Increasing a system’s performance by an order of magnitude cannot be regarded as obvious.”), 1590–1591. Petitioner’s arguments presented in its own patents and during their” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,709,001 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,709,001
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00858 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that the asserted prior-art combinations would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 26; PO Resp. 8–9. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either 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 nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, summarized above, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to a computer-controlled, OCTguided laser system. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Swinger and Baikoff to achieve a laser surgical system incorporating an OCT imaging system, that combination still would not have achieved the required “control system” of the claims and all of its programmed surgical functionality. Petitioner relies on the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Swinger’s computer control unit with the missing functionality, thus necessitating an electronic conversion of the steps performed by a surgeon using Swinger’s direct visualization method using a HeNe aiming beam to manually identify a surgical treatment region for laser surgery. Ex. 1039, 34:52–57; Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 55–59, 66. That conversion, however, involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and then implement the planned cataract surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show were known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and to implement a planned cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace or even considered before the invention. We recognize that Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Izatt who opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, for example, use a controller to determine the claimed scanning pattern. Ex. 1001 ¶ 159; Pet. 32–33; Reply 3–5; see also Ex. 1123 ¶ 31 (“Once the anterior capsule is identified, it is a relatively simple process to determine the location to place the capsulotomy.”). Here, however, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition and supporting testimony fails to provide the requisite reasoned analysis with sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s position on obviousness. In particular, absent some evidentiary support beyond Dr. Izatt’s and Dr. Tipperman’s bare opinions that it would have been obvious to program a controller to bridge the gap between the functionality disclosed in Swinger and the required functionality of the challenged claims, we are unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. PO Resp. 27; Sur-Reply 4–7; Ex. 1001 ¶ 159; see also DSS, 885 F.3d at 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A skilled artisan’s “common sense” or “common knowledge” can potentially “fill in a missing limitation only when ‘the limitation in question was unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward.’” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 25

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be incorporated-by-reference in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential)).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,425,497 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,425,497
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2022 · IPR2021-00839 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish the claimed image guided, computer planned cataract surgery.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling argument and evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 24; PO Resp. 10–11. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are M.D.s); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either 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 nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., five years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, we need only construe the claims to the extent necessary resolve the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See generally PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor., 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We have considered Petitioner’s assertions and evidence, summarized above, and agree with Patent Owner that the combination of Swinger, Baikoff, and Li fails to disclose or render obvious a control system configured to generate an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern based on image data. PO Resp. 18–23. Petitioner relies on Li for this limitation, however, while Li discloses the use of OCT imaging to measure certain dimensions of the anterior chamber of the eye, Li suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art manually use the measurement data collected by the system. (Ex. 1044, 1; Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 44–46). More specifically, as summarized by Patent Owner: Li does not suggest configuring the control system to do anything at all with the measurements that it makes, much less determine an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern. Kang [Ex. 2087] ¶¶ 80, 128. To the contrary, Li’s suggestion of using measurements to “improve the fitting of AC-IOL” teaches a [skilled artisan] to manually use the measurement data. Id. Dr. Izatt testified that “in Li, the controller, so to speak, is a human.” Ex. 2057, 207:17–208:7; see also id., 207:20–21 (in Li, “the one who identifies the treatment region is the surgeon”). PO Resp. 19–20 (emphasis removed, alteration in original). That is, Li discloses a system capable of identifying boundaries of certain eye tissue structures, but fails to disclose a controller configured to determine an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern. Id. at 17 (“Li teaches using its OCT images as a diagnostic tool.”). Thus, while Li discloses the use of OCT to identifying certain boundaries of tissue structures, Li does not disclose any controller configured to process image data for the purposes of determining a scanning pattern for scanning a focal zone of the laser beam for performing anterior capsulotomy as required by the claims.” slip op. at 26

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

    “The problem with Petitioner’s argument based on Leapfrog and the like is that Petitioner’s obviousness challenge does not simply require automating a manual step using commonplace modern electronics, but requires the conversion of one cataract surgery treatment region identification system into another. That conversion involves the incorporation of OCT imaging technology as the basis for a computer-controlled system to plan and implement eye surgery, two technological leaps that the record fails to show was known or suggested. In particular, the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that OCT was a well-known system used routinely, if at all, in the identification of treatment regions in the lens or lens capsule for cataract surgery, and further does not support a conclusion that a computer-controlled system to plan and implement cataract surgery in the lens was commonplace. We recognize that Petitioner directs us to the testimony of Dr. Izatt who opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to, for example, use a controller to determine the claimed scanning pattern. Pet. 32–33; Reply 3–5; see also Ex. 1123 ¶ 31 (“Once the anterior capsule is identified, it is a relatively simple process to determine the location to place the capsulotomy.”). Here, however, we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition and supporting testimony fails to provide the requisite reasoned analysis with sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s position on obviousness. In particular, absent some evidentiary support beyond Dr. Izatt’s and Dr. Tipperman’s opinions that it would have been obvious to program a controller to bridge the gap between the functionality disclosed in Swinger and the required functionality of the challenged claims, we are unwilling to accept this line of reasoning. PO Resp. 27; Sur-Reply 4–7; see also DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (A skilled artisan’s “common sense” or “common knowledge” can potentially “fill in a missing limitation only when ‘the limitation in question was unusually simple and the technology particularly straightforward.’” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,101,448 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,101,448
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2021-00835 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed image-processing control system or a sufficient basis to adapt the cited systems for lens surgery.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties present compelling evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would include those with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 24; PO Resp. 10–11. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such comprehensive experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees (Ph.D.s, B.S.s, and M.D.s) would work together to design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. See, e.g., Ex. 1041 (several authors are MDs); Ex. 1042 (the authors’ degrees include Ph.D.s, an M.D., and a B.S.); see also Ex. 1053; Ex. 1054; Ex. 1055; Ex. 2010; Ex. 2019. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been either 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 nuclear engineering, having experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years of experience for a Ph.D. or more to compensate for lesser degrees), and that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner does not assert that any claim term requires express construction. See Pet. 7 (stating that it “reserves the right to respond to any constructions that [Patent Owner] submits”). Patent Owner does not present any remarks regarding claim construction. See, generally, PO Resp. On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 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.”)). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We recognize Petitioner’s argument that the use of a controller for determining an anterior capsulotomy scanning pattern would have been “nothing more than automating a manual activity using well-known components (e.g., controllers and algorithms) in predictable ways, which would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” because a controller would be programmed to determine automatically scanning patterns once the boundaries of the ocular tissue are identified. Pet 32 (citing Ex.1001 ¶ 181; MPEP 2144.04; In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958)); Reply 5–6. We also recognize Petitioner’s argument that “[t]he prior art teaches that integrating diagnostic imaging and treatment functionalities in a single automated system is not only desirable, but also straightforward.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 150); see also Reply 7–8 (quoting Venner, 262 F.2d at 95 (“[I]t is well settled that it is not ‘invention’ to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result”); citing Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (updating mechanical invention with modern electronics is understood in the art)). Having considered the parties positions and evidence of record, however, we find that the evidence of record does not support a conclusion that it would have been simple, straightforward, or otherwise routine to convert Swinger’s manual HeNe aiming system and Swinger’s surgeon-identification-of-target-tissue step to an automated, OCT-guided laser system. We provide further analysis below.” slip op. at 28

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be incorporated-by-reference in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 9,095,415 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,095,415
• Daicel Corporation v. Celanese International CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2016 · IPR2015-00173 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 58–60, 67, 69, and 71–72 were not shown unpatentable over the ’095 patent; claim 73 was not shown unpatentable over the ’095 patent and JP ’712 because the required amount of DME was not …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner relies on Mr. Jones’s testimony to establish the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 17. Mr. Jones testified that the person of ordinary skill in the art “as of March 2, 2004, the effective filing date of the ’507 Patent” (Ex. 1039 ¶ 15) would have been a chemist or chemical engineer with an advanced degree, or a Bachelor of Science degree and equivalent work experience (e.g., five years in an industrial setting producing acetic acid, acetic anhydride, or related chemicals), and would have generally understood acetic acid production on an industrial scale including the distillation processes and extraction processes that are used in acetic acid or acetic anhydride production. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood chemical reactions in general, and, particularly, the primary reactions and the side-reactions associated with acetic acid production (id. ¶ 16). Mr. Jones further testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had separations experience, an understanding of industrial-scale processes, and experience in the production of acetic acid, acetic anhydride, or related chemicals. Id. ¶ 17. Dr. Porcelli, testified that he “generally agree[s]” with Mr. Jones’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 15; see also Ex. 1065, 65:9–66:5). During cross-examination, however, Dr. Porcelli testified that one of ordinary skill in the art would require, more specifically, an understanding of the low water acetic process and its implementation on an industrial scale. See, e.g., Ex. 1065, 126:18–127:1.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Based on our analysis of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ’507 patent to speak in terms of effects, not molecules. See PO Resp. 4– 5; Tr. 41:8–16. We, therefore, construe the recitation “distilling [a mixture comprising water, acetic acid, methyl iodide, methyl acetate, methanol, and at least one PRC] to separate the mixture into a plurality of streams, at least one of said streams being a PRC enriched overhead stream comprising dimethyl ether” in step (a) of claim 58 as requiring the presence of dimethyl ether in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being more than trace or insubstantial. Such amount would be, for example, more than the amount produced in a conventional, prior art, low water carbonylation process that used the same initial reactor contents and conditions, and the same processing equipment. We further interpret this language as requiring the presence of DME in the PRC enriched overhead stream in an amount sufficient to cause (1) a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during the extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and (2) an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the subsequent extraction of the first raffinate stream (claim 58, step (b)), which increase in recoverable methyl iodide would be recognized as more than insubstantial by the ordinary artisan.” slip op. at 42

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 97; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial). Dr. Porcelli testified that he believed removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had a significant effect on the presence of DME in the ’095 patent Example and that this irreversible reaction should have been considered by Mr. Jones in his calculations. Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 130–131. Mr. Jones conceded “some DME will be carbonylated in the reactor” (Ex. 1060 ¶ 45), and that the carbonylation of DME to make acetic acid under low water conditions is an irreversible reaction (Ex. 2026, 227:19–228:1). See also Ex. 1060 ¶ 27 (arguing Exhibits 2032, 2034 evidence DME formation in a batch reactor during methanol carbonylation, but admitting that as the water and methyl acetate start to diminish, DME concentration begins to drop and DME is eventually carbonylated into either acetic acid or acetic anhydride). Mr. Jones disagreed with Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that “carbonylation of DME is . . . known to have a fast reaction rate” and “would be consumed by carbonylation faster than it would be formed by methanol dehydration, especially under low water conditions” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 130). Ex. 1060 ¶ 44. Mr. Jones provided testimony explaining why he believes “the carbonylation of DME is not particularly fast.” Id.; see id. ¶¶ 45–48. Mr. Jones relied on a textbook by Gauthier-Lafaye (Ex. 1062), published in 1987, as evidence that the carbonylation of DME proceeds more slowly than the carbonylation of methyl acetate. Ex. 1060 ¶ 47. Mr. Jones testified that because the reaction liquid in the ’095 patent Example is reported to contain 1.6 wt% methyl acetate, and the carbonylation rate of DME is even slower than that of methyl acetate, then “it stands to reason that the carbonylation rate of DME is not going to be so fast as to ‘immediately’ react away any DME that is formed via the methanol dehydration equilibrium reaction.” Id. ¶ 48. Mr. Jones further testified that consideration of this competing side reaction was “irrelevant to calculating equilibrium concentration” of DME in the reactor in the ’095 patent Example. Id. ¶ 51. The disclosure in Gauthier-Lafaye relied upon by Mr. Jones relates to the carbonylation of methyl acetate into acetic anhydride (Ex. 1062, 9), i.e., a different reaction system than the ’095 and ’507 patents (see Paper 73, 8 (Observation #F.1)). This evidence, therefore, does not support Mr. Jones’s testimony that the carbonylation of DME in the ’095 patent reaction system was irrelevant to his calculation of equilibrium DME concentration. Rather we credit Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that removal of DME by rapid carbonylation would have had an effect on the presence, or at least the quantity, of DME in the ’095 patent Example, and that this factor should have been taken into consideration by Mr. Jones in his calculations. See Ex. 2029 ¶ 130. Mr. Jones testified that in view of the low boiling point of DME (-23.7 ºC), most of the DME will immediately flash from the reactor product . . . and be concentrated in the overhead streams. In view of the relatively low amount of DME in the reactor and overhead, DME’s very low boiling point, and the elevated temperatures in the reactor, special handling techniques would be needed to sample for such a compound in the reaction mixture. It is therefore not surprising that the presence of DME was not measured in the ’095 patent, despite the fact that it was undoubtedly present. Ex. 1060 ¶ 118. Given Mr. Miura’s testimony that he believed DME, if present, would have been detectable (Ex. 1046, 280:9–281:1), and Paulik’s disclosure that insubstantial amounts of DME were measurable as early as 1970 (see, e.g., Ex. 2037, 13:47–49, 15:32–34), Mr. Jones’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1060 ¶ 101 (“It should be clear to someone skilled in the art that very dilute and trace components are frequently not reported in chemical analytical results or in listed process stream compositions.”)) does not show convincingly that DME was present in the second overhead in more than a trace quantity, if at all. See id. ¶ 90 (“[T]he only issue is whether some amount of DME exists (which clearly it does).”).” slip op. at 56

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “have been present in the distillation overhead in the ’095 patent Example in an amount sufficient to reduce solubility of methyl iodide in water during subsequent water extraction steps. Mr. Miura testified that 1.2 wt% DME was present in the second overhead in Experiment 1. Ex. 1005 ¶ 13, Table 1. Mr. Jones testified that he would expect the amount of DME in the second overhead in the ’095 patent process to be about three times the amount of DME in the overhead in Miura Experiment 1 (Ex. 2040, 289:10–– 298:7), because Mr. Miura’s experiment was carried out under conditions less favorable to DME formation as compared to the conditions in the ’095 patent Example (see Ex. 1060 ¶¶ 130, 139). A preponderance of the evidence, however, does not support a finding that DME was present, if at all, in more than a trace quantity/insubstantial amount in the second overhead of the ’095 patent Example, for the following reasons: Although Mr. Miura reported that the second overhead in his Experiment 1 contained 1.2% DME (Ex. 1005 ¶ 13, Table 1), he did not testify that this quantity would be present in the ’095 patent Example despite acknowledged differences in quantities of reaction components and operating conditions (see id. ¶ 21). Rather, Mr. Miura testified that Experiment 1 provided evidence that DME simply was present in some amount in the second overhead in the ’095 patent Example. Id. (“[T]he deviations would not affect the outcome with respect to the presence of DME in the first and second overheads.”). Mr. Miura testified that he supervised the ’095 patent Example and believed DME was present and accounted for in the 0.9 wt% reported as “others.” Ex. 1046, 241:17–242:9. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Mr. Jones’s testimony that the amount of DME in the second overhead in the ’095 patent process would be about three times the amount of DME in the overhead in Miura Experiment 1, i.e. 3.6 wt% (Ex. 2040, 289:10––298:7). See Tr. 70:3–8 (wherein Patent Owner’s counsel raises this inconsistency). We are not persuaded by Mr. Jones’s testimony that an amount as high as 3.6 wt% DME could have been present in the ’095 patent Example, but not reported (see Ex. 2040, 301:18–303:2; Paper 73, 5–6 (Observation #C.4)), since the prior art, e.g., Paulik, clearly indicates DME was considered an undesirable reaction byproduct in a carbonylation process. Mr. Miura did not testify as to what portion of the 0.9 wt% reported as “others” in the ’095 patent Example constituted DME, or whether the amount of DME would be considered more than a trace quantity/insubstantial amount. Nor is there any testimony or evidence that 0.9 wt% or less DME in the overhead/feed to the extractor would have been an amount sufficient to cause a reduction in the solubility of methyl iodide in water during extraction of the PRC enriched overhead stream and an increase in the amount of methyl iodide recoverable during the subsequent extraction of the first raffinate stream as required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 58 of the ’507 patent. We are not persuaded that Mr. Jones’s calculations provide a reliable method of determining the amount of DME present in a methanol carbonylation process. Mr. Miura and Dr. Porcelli agreed that it is extremely difficult to anticipate the presence or amount of a component such as DME in a methanol carbonylation system such as the one described in the ’095 patent. See Ex. 1046, 281:14–22; Ex. 2029 ¶ 112. Dr. Porcelli testified that Mr. Jones’s estimates of DME content in the ’095 patent Example were based on numerous assumptions that rendered his estimations of reactor and distillation overhead DME concentrations meaningless. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 137, 140, 151. Dr. Porcelli testified, for example, that it was “improper and incorrect” for Mr. Jones “to fail to account for DME lost with the vent stream in the reactor, especially because of the high volatility of DME.” Id. ¶ 148. Mr. Miura’s measured amount of DME present in the first overhead in Experiment 1 was less than half the amount Mr. Jones calculated would be present, supporting Dr. Porcelli’s testimony that the loss of DME via the vents would have had a marked impact on the actual amount of DME sent to distillation column 40 (from which the second overhead stream is produced) in the ’095 patent Example. See Ex. 1060 ¶ 153 (“(103 ppm (calc.) vs. 48 ppm (actual)) is likely to due to loss of DME with the vent gas from the splitter condenser, due to the very low boiling point of DME”); see also Ex. 1039 ¶ 97; Ex. 1060 ¶ 121 (wherein Mr. Jones agreed that the loss of DME from the vent stream in the separator (or decanter) after splitter column 14 in the ’095 patent process would be substantial).” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,076,507 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,076,507
• Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00347 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–17, 21–28, 31–33, 38, 51, and 52 were not shown unpatentable because Ghias and Iwamura did not disclose the claimed non-exhaustive search.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No. 15–446, slip op. at 13 (U.S. June 20, 2016). In our Institution Decision, we construed “a non-exhaustive search” to mean “a search that locates a match without a comparison of all possible matches.” Dec. 7. We disagreed with Petitioner’s view that a search that conducts a comparison with all possible matches is nevertheless non-” slip op. at 5

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

    “For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Ghias discloses “a non- exhaustive search identifying a neighbor,” as recited in independent claim 15. Claims 16, 17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 depend from claim 15. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Ghias discloses each and every limitation of claims 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Ghias anticipates 15–17, 21–23, 28, 31, and 51 of the ’988 patent.” slip op. at 12

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

    “With respect to its contention that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 would have been obvious over Ghias, Petitioner does not present any additional analysis of the recited “non-exhaustive search” beyond that addressed above in connection with claim 15. Therefore, for the same reasons, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 24–26, and 52 are unpatentable for obviousness over Ghias.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,010,988 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,010,988

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.