• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Transport Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2017 · IPR2016-01633 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the Draft Ontario Report was prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “consider whether the document was distributed, displayed without indicia of confidentiality, able to be found, or available on request to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates. See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F. 3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To qualify as a printed publication, a reference ‘must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.’” quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1989)). We consider the question of whether the Draft Ontario Report is a printed publication anew, based on the complete record, in light of the evidence and arguments adduced at trial.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Andrews, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’101 patent “would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering, or the equivalent,” as well as “two years of experience working with automated toll roads, intelligent transportation systems, RFID tracking systems, or a similar field of experience.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 47. Patent Owner does not offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’101 patent. See generally PO Resp. Based on our review of the ’101 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’101 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “E. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner contends that we should have denied the Petition because Petitioner presented “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” in this proceeding as in the earlier ’1077 IPR. PO Resp. 2 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)). Patent Owner further contends that we abused our discretion by instituting trial in the present proceeding because we did not “explain[] how the invalidity grounds presented in this proceeding are not ‘the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments,’” and as such, our decision was arbitrary and capricious, and violates Patent Owner’s due process rights. Id. at 13–15. Lastly, Patent Owner contends that the Petition is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Id. at 15. We decline to address these issues insofar as they are moot in light of our conclusion that the Draft Ontario Report is not demonstrated to qualify as prior art and our ultimate conclusion that the challenged claims are not shown to be unpatentable in view of challenges based on the Draft Ontario Report.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,980,101 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,980,101
• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Transport Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2017 · IPR2016-01077 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are unpatentable over Hassett ’183, and claims 5 and 10 are unpatentable over Hassett ’183 and Hassett ’389.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As we discussed in our Decision to Institute, “a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Even though the preamble provides antecedent basis for the claim term “registrant,” deleting the preamble would not affect the structure of the invention recited in claim 1. The body of claim 1 not only defines a structurally complete vehicle occupancy monitoring system with a transmitter, a sending transponder, and a reading data collector, but the body of the claim substantially overlaps with the recitation of the preamble (compare Ex. 1001, 3:26–28, with id. at 3:29–37). Similarly, the body of claim 6 describes a complete process and also substantially reiterates the preamble; “receiving the claim by a registrant as to number of occupants in a vehicle and reading the signal from the vehicle that identifies the registrant as the vehicle transits the designated section of highway” (compare id. at 4:13–16, with id. at 4:22–25).” slip op. at 9

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

    “The claims recite language broader than that of the disclosures cited by Patent Owner. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments to construe the term “registrant” to refer to a specific, instead of a generic, program so as to exclude registering one’s vehicle because Patent Owner’s construction impermissibly imports limitations from the specification. See PO Resp. 20; see Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184; see Inst. Dec. 10–11. We further disagree with Patent Owner that the construction of “registrant” should be revised to account for its use in the claims because we agree with Petitioner that the body of claim 1 does not require the registrant to have made the “claim as to the number of occupants in the vehicle” and claim 6 does not impose any further limitations on the registrant itself. See Reply 2. We also decline to consider whether “registrant” could refer alternatively to an entity and a person because it is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See id. at 3; see Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. Because the specification of the ’101 patent does not define explicitly the term “register” or “registrant,” we refer to the ordinary and customary meaning of these terms, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d at 1257. To determine the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms, we refer to its dictionary definition. The dictionary definition for the term “register” is “to enter in or as in a record or list; enroll or record official” and definition for the term “registrant” is “a person who registers.” Webster’s New World College Dictionary 4th Edition, 1999 (Ex. 3001, 4). In our Institution Decision, we concluded that the claim term “registrant” encompasses a person who has registered their vehicle or enrolled in a program. Inst. Dec. 10–11. Registering one’s vehicle constitutes recording officially the ownership of the vehicle, such as with a state department of motor vehicles, consistent with the dictionary definition of register set forth above. Based on the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, we are not persuaded to deviate from our preliminary construction of the claim term “registrant.”” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Andrews, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’101 patent “would have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical or Computer Engineering or the equivalent, plus two years of experience with automated toll roads, intelligent transportation systems, RFID tracking systems, or similar experience.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 49. Patent Owner does not offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’101 patent and indicates that it “does not disagree with [Petitioner’s] definition.” PO Resp. 9. Based on the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, we see no reason to modify our decision to adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “the complete record, and in particular, based on the portions of Hassett ’183 cited by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews’s testimony in the Petition and the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the vehicle operator (i.e., driver) disclosed in Hassett ’183 would, in some cases, be a registered owner of a vehicle, and thus, we are satisfied that Petitioner establishes sufficiently that Hassett ’183 teaches the “registrant” recited in claim 1. See Pet. 7; see Ex. 1008 ¶ 78; see Ex. 2015, 39:3–6; see Reply 21. We further agree with Petitioner that the teachings of the VIN and identifying signal disclosed in Hassett ’183, when considered in light of the background and state of the art, would have been understood by the ordinarily skilled artisan to disclose (implicitly) a licensing authority with which a vehicle is registered and a program administrator for automatic tolling systems, thus mirroring the two types of registration discussed above in Section II.A.3. See Pet. 11–13 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 32, 34, 77–79); see Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 32–39; see Ex. 2015, 67:7–19. Thus, we are satisfied that Petitioner establishes sufficiently that Hassett ’183 teaches the “program administrator” recited in claim 1. We are also satisfied that Petitioner establishes sufficiently that the disclosure of a VIN and an identifying signal for the vehicle-borne transponder in Hassett ’183 teaches the “code” recited in claim 1. We credit the testimony from Mr. Andrews that the VIN identifies indirectly the registered vehicle owner via the vehicle title and the factual evidence cited in paragraphs 32 through 39 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 78. We further credit his testimony that the transponder identifying signal (which can encompass the VIN) would be unique at least because it encompasses the VIN, through which a registered owner could be identified. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 2015, 62:20–63:1, 73:16–18, 86:16–20). In view of the above, we are satisfied that Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Hassett ’183 teaches the “sending transponder” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,980,101 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,980,101
• Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. v. Twin Rivers Engineering, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2017 · IPR2017-00362 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Fieldpiece’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the Petition did not sufficiently show that the prior art taught or suggested the negative limitation in claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Pet. 44 (for claims 2 and 9); see also id. at 58 (substantially similar argument for claim 6), 68 (for claim 7, referring to argument for claim 6). In its Rehearing Request, Petitioner cites numerous portions of the Laub Declaration in support of its contention. Reh’g. Req. 5, 6, 8–10, 12, 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 29, 30, 32–34, 36, 49, 50, 73, 74). None of these portions of the Laub Declaration were cited in the Petition in connection with the negative limitation. In fact, as noted in our Decision, Petitioner did not cite to the Laub Declaration at all in connection with the negative limitation. See Dec. 14 n.2. The Rehearing Request “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (emphasis added). As Petitioner did not cite to the Laub Declaration at all in connection with the negative limitation in its Petition, we could not have “misapprehended or overlooked” this evidence in connection with that limitation. Moreover, the portions of the Petition cited in the Rehearing Request relate only to overviews of the references. See Reh’g. Req. 5–13 (citing Pet. 13, 14, 21, 22, 26, 29, 33, 34, 46, 47). In our Decision, we stated that the burden of persuasion remains on a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings. See Dec. 13 (citing DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”)). Petitioner does not meet its burden because none of these overviews explain why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the references to teach or suggest the negative limitation. Similarly, even having considered the portions of the Laub Declaration first cited in the Request for Rehearing, we still are not persuaded Petitioner explains sufficiently why the negative limitation is taught or suggested by the references.” slip op. at 3

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

    “person of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless expected the limitation ‘without…a secondary tracer’ to have been known in the art.” Reh’g. Req. 2, 14. The Petition, however, does not mention the level of the ordinary skill in the art in connection with the negative limitation, let alone explain why the limitation would have been taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Petitioner further asserts that our Decision “misapprehends the disclosure in the prior art and is based on authority regarding [the] written description requirement of a negative limitation – not the standard required to show disclosure of a negative limitation in the prior art.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added); see also id. at 13–14 (expanding upon argument). We clarify that we relied on the case law cited in our Decision, not to indicate the minimum that a petitioner is required to show regarding a negative limitation, but simply to emphasize that the negative limitation inquiry is focused on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art to teach or suggest. Petitioner does not disagree with this legal point. See, e.g., id. at 15 (“Petitioner contends that the prior art, when viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, sufficiently discloses the negative limitation . . .”). Nonetheless, as noted above, Petitioner neither points out an express teaching nor provides any other explanation as to why the negative limitation would have been taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Based on our construction of the negative limitation and our reading of the prior art, we concluded that a person of ordinary skill would not have understood the prior art to disclose the negative limitation. And Petitioner did not provide any evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., Pet. 44, 58, 68 (citing “generally” to prior art exhibits, but not citing to Laub Declaration). Thus, we are not persuaded that we erred in determining that Petitioner did not meet its burden to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this issue.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, the portions of the Petition cited in the Rehearing Request relate only to overviews of the references. See Reh’g. Req. 5–13 (citing Pet. 13, 14, 21, 22, 26, 29, 33, 34, 46, 47). In our Decision, we stated that the burden of persuasion remains on a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings. See Dec. 13 (citing DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”)). Petitioner does not meet its burden because none of these overviews explain why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the references to teach or suggest the negative limitation. Similarly, even having considered the portions of the Laub Declaration first cited in the Request for Rehearing, we still are not persuaded Petitioner explains sufficiently why the negative limitation is taught or suggested by the references.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,022,993
• Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. v. Twin Rivers Engineering, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2017 · IPR2017-00362 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 were obvious over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner does not point to sufficient evidence or explain how Wong, Wallack, Sibley, Horiba, Johnson Controls, and Moyer teach or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. In the present proceeding, citing to these references generally, particularly without citation to specific portions, is insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Moreover, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that the silence of the references regarding the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations teaches or otherwise suggests the negative limitation recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.”); see also Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We hold that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations and that properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.”)” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenInstitution denied

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner does not point to sufficient evidence or explain how Wong, Wallack, Sibley, Horiba, Johnson Controls, and Moyer teach or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. In the present proceeding, citing to these references generally, particularly without citation to specific portions, is insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Moreover, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that the silence of the references regarding the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations teaches or otherwise suggests the negative limitation recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.”); see also Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We hold that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations and that properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.”)” slip op. at 13

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner does not point to sufficient evidence or explain how Wong, Wallack, Sibley, Horiba, Johnson Controls, and Moyer teach or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. In the present proceeding, citing to these references generally, particularly without citation to specific portions, is insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Moreover, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that the silence of the references regarding the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations teaches or otherwise suggests the negative limitation recited in claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation.”); see also Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We hold that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations and that properly described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.”) Furthermore, Wong at least suggests “introducing or mixing a secondary tracer within the leak detector,” which is directly contrary to the negative limitations at issue. Specifically, Wong discloses The chamber 104 that is to be tested is filled with a test gas and preferably is pressurized with the test gas so as to accelerate the leakage, if any, of the test gas from the chamber. The chamber is surrounded by an ambient gas which may be the air of the atmosphere, or, alternatively, the chamber 104 may be placed within a larger chamber so as to permit the chamber 104 to be surrounded by a chosen ambient gas other than air. In another embodiment, shown in FIG. 3 a localized region on the surface of the chamber may be flooded by a chosen ambient gas that temporarily displaces the air that otherwise would be present. Ex. 1004, 3:52–62 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s Declarant, Mr. Laub, testifies that “Wong discloses a hand-held portable infrared leak detector . . . which detects leaks without introducing or mixing a secondary tracer,” but fails to cite any underlying record evidence supporting his testimony.2 Ex. 1003 ¶ 103. Mr. Laub also fails to address the disclosure of Wong described above. Mr. Laub presents similarly unsupported testimony with respect to Wallack and Sibley. See id. ¶¶ 107, 113. We do not find persuasive Mr. Laub’s conclusory and unsupported testimony regarding the disclosure of Wong, Wallack, and Sibley. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). With respect to claim 6, Mr. Laub supports his testimony by citing portions of Moyer. Id. ¶ 172 (citing Ex. 1010, 3:43–45, 3:53–56, 4:22–25). We have reviewed the cited portions of Moyer and disagree that they disclose or suggest the “without . . . secondary tracer” limitations recited in independent claims 2, 6, 7, and 9. 2 Petitioner does not actually cite to this specific portion of Mr. Laub’s testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (requiring petitions to include a statement of the precise relief requested, including “identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge . . . [t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). It is unnecessary to invoke rule 104(b)(5) here because even considering this portion of Mr. Laub’s testimony, we do not find its contents persuasive.” slip op. at 14

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,022,993
• Hamamatsu Corporation v. Sionyx, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · May 26, 2017 · IPR2016-01910 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing

  Rehearing was granted for claims 9, 24, and 25 because Petitioner did not show their process limitations lacked patentable weight; it was denied for claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 13.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

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

    “The relevant inquiry is not whether the Specification has support for an “enhanced response,” but whether the Specification supports construing the claim term “interact with” to mean an “enhanced response and/or filtering.” Even assuming, without deciding, for the purposes of this decision, that diffusing, redirecting, and absorbing electromagnetic radiation results in an increased quantum efficiency that could be considered to provide an enhanced response to electromagnetic radiation, Patent Owner fails to demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the description in the ’591 patent Specification that the claim term “interacting with” is defined as “providing an enhanced response and/or filtering.” Furthermore, we are unable to discern a portion of the Specification of the ’591 patent that discloses such an equivalency. Not only does the ’591 patent not define “interact with,” the Abstract of the ’591 patent discloses that “[i]n one aspect, the textured region is operable to facilitate generation of an electrical signal from the detection of infrared electromagnetic radiation” and “[i]n another aspect, interacting with electromagnetic radiation further includes increasing the semiconductor substrate’s effective absorption wavelength as compared to a semiconductor substrate lacking a textured region.” Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added). This passage suggests that, at least in one aspect, “interact[ing] with” electromagnetic radiation includes merely generating electrons from photons, which is not an “enhanced response” and/or “filtering,” as required by Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction.” slip op. at 4

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

    “position with sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 do not impart structural and functional differences to the product. Moreover, Petitioner does not point to citations in the ’591 patent, testimonial evidence, or any other record evidence to support its position that the structure or functionality of the textured region resulting from the chemical etching or lasing processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 would be the same as the structure or functionality of a roughened surface produced by a mechanical polishing process as disclosed in Nakashiba. Rather, Petitioner provides only conclusory statements regarding its position. Given that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the limitations recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 are not entitled to patentable weight, and in light of Petitioner’s concession that “Nakashiba does not disclose that the roughened surface S1 is formed by either lasing (in particular using short duration laser pulses) or chemical etching, as recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 of the ‘591 Patent,” we determine Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to showing that claims 9, 24, and 25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Nakashiba.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Upon review of the record, we determine Petitioner did not support its position with sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 do not impart structural and functional differences to the product. Moreover, Petitioner does not point to citations in the ’591 patent, testimonial evidence, or any other record evidence to support its position that the structure or functionality of the textured region resulting from the chemical etching or lasing processes recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 would be the same as the structure or functionality of a roughened surface produced by a mechanical polishing process as disclosed in Nakashiba. Rather, Petitioner provides only conclusory statements regarding its position. Given that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that the limitations recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 are not entitled to patentable weight, and in light of Petitioner’s concession that “Nakashiba does not disclose that the roughened surface S1 is formed by either lasing (in particular using short duration laser pulses) or chemical etching, as recited in claims 9, 24, and 25 of the ‘591 Patent,” we determine Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to showing that claims 9, 24, and 25 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Nakashiba.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,680,591
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Hybrid Audio, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2017 · IPR2016-01265 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution, finding no overlooked or misapprehended arguments and upholding its construction of “filter” to exclude QMF filters.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “(d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

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

    “evidence when we determined that the term “filter,” in the context of the ’281 patent and its prosecution history, excludes QMF filters. See id.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision Denying Institution (Paper 7, “Dec.”). Petitioner requests that we reconsider our decision to deny institution of inter partes review with respect to claims 5, 12, 18, 26, 34, 41, 48, 57, 66, 71, 83, 90, 95, 100, 107, 112, 114, 116, and 120 (“the challenged claims”) and our determination that Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. RE40,281 (Ex. 1001, “the ’281 patent”) would have been obvious over various combinations of Jones, Adelson, and Veldhuis. For the reasons set forth below, the request is denied. slip op. at 2

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness

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.