- Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required purge-tower teachings or prior-art status.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“According to the ’713 patent, “[p]urge tower 24 itself may be . . . recycled or otherwise discarded as desired.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28. This description provides some support for Patent Owner’s view, because a purge tower too intimately integrated with the part would be difficult or impossible to recycle or discard. This is further supported by the ’713 patent’s statement that “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Id. at 8:30–34. It also is supported by Dr. Hickner’s testimony that the ’713 patent “clearly shows . . . the 24 purge tower separated from the part” and that “the purge tower is a separate physical object.” Ex. 2016, 28:8–10, 64:1–9. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting Petitioner’s view that, as long as the purge tower is generally separate from the part and the support structure, it may still make contact with those portions of the print. As noted above, “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Ex. 1001, 8:30–34. This language does not exclude locations adjacent to or in contact with the part or the support structure. Thus, determine that a “purge tower,” as that term is used in the context of the ’713 patent, may not be an integrated portion of a printed part or support structure but need not be free of all contact with the printed part or support structure.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“There is evidence of record to support both Petitioner’s view and Patent Owner’s view. On the record developed at trial, however, we cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer teaches printing a layer of a purge tower each time the printer switches one extruder to the operating mode. Because proving the obviousness of claims 1 and 16 requires such a showing, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer. 5. Analysis of Remaining Claims Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or claim 16. Accordingly, they all include the limitations of either claim 1 or claim 16. Because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, Petitioner also has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 would have been obvious over that combination of references.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther
“On the record developed at trial, we agree with Petitioner. According to several industry forum posts, people interested in three-dimensional printing located the website where KISSlicer was posted between February 2012 and April 2012. Ex. 1028, 1 (post discussing and directing others to KISSlicer on April 11, 2012); Ex. 1031, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012); Ex. 1032, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on February 11, 2012, and February 14, 2012). Thus, not only was it possible for people of ordinary skill in the art to locate KISSlicer; people of ordinary skill in the art actually did locate it. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 9,421,713 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,421,713 - Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,757,828 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00614 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–18, 21–24, and 27–29 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish all limitations or a reason to combine the cited teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe a claim term “using the same claim construction standard that 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) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The parties agree that, for purposes of this Decision, no claim term needs specific construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 10. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, or a closely related field, along with at least two years of experience in the design of entertaining lighting systems, and the design and use of LEDs.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have had “2 to 4 years’ experience in electrical engineering/design of film and television lighting systems, including the design and use of LED lights, combined with two to three years of work experience as a set lighting technician in television and/or motion picture industry.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 2100 ¶¶ 156–161). Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. (“Regardless of which definition of a POSITA is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the skill level at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Kit and Katzir. Petitioner argues that “Katzir further discloses daylight and tungsten temperature ranges within the claimed temperature ranges.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 53, 54, Figs. 5A, 5B). Petitioner relies on the Holmes Declaration to show that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102). Mr. Holmes testifies that [b]oth Kit and Katzir teach using LEDs of various colors in a fluorescent tube form factor, like a T8 or T12 fluorescent tube. Katzir also discloses various LED array layouts that a POSITA would have a looked to when designing an LED tube lighting like that disclosed in Kit. A POSITA would have had strong motivation to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube form factor. Ex. 1003 ¶ 102 (internal citations omitted). As discussed above, however, the cited passages of Kit describe a light with LEDs that produces a single, consistent temperature of warm white, commercial white, or cool white. Ex. 1004, 3:28–36, 22:9–25. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Holmes sufficiently explains why a POSITA would have modified Kit to include Katzir’s particular layout that includes both cool white LEDs and warm white LEDs. See Pet. 19, 24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 102; In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (instructing that we must articulate a reason why a POSITA would combine the prior art references). We identified the aforementioned deficiencies for this asserted challenge in the Decision on Institution. DI 21–23. Petitioner did not address those deficiencies in the Reply. See generally Reply; Tr. 6:16–7:10. Thus, based on the entire record developed at trial, and for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kit, Ianiro, Ducharme, and Katzir.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Petitioner asserts that Mr. Holmes cited Hasnain’s heat dissipation techniques. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49). Paragraph 490 of Exhibit 1003 relates to Ducharme, not Hasnain, and thus, does not support Petitioner’s argument. Although paragraphs 41 to 49 of Exhibit 1049 span more than seven pages, other than the single citation in the Reply, Petitioner does not discuss any of the testimony presented therein. We, thus, do not consider this portion of the Holmes Supplemental Declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3). Furthermore, we would not be persuaded by Mr. Holmes’ testimony even if we considered it. For example, Mr. Holmes testifies that Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure “a variety of heat dissipating techniques are disclosed by Hasnain, any one of which could readily be used in a T12 form factor LED light, as expressly recognized by Hasnain.” Ex. 1049 ¶ 46. We disagree with Mr. Holmes that Hasnain teaches enclosing its heat-dissipating structure in a fluorescent light tube. Hasnain teaches “a replacement LED light source for fluorescent tube 22 [that] plug[s] into the same connectors and operate[s] from the voltage patterns generated by the ballasts.” Ex. 1008, 3:23–26. Hasnain also teaches that “the replacement LED light source has a plurality of LEDs mounted on a heat-dissipating substrate that has a width that is less than or equal to the diameter of the fluorescent tube that the light source is designed to replace.” Id. at 5:52–56. Thus, Hasnain teaches that its LED light fits into, and connects with, an existing structure that previously held a fluorescent light tube. Id. at 2:50–56, 3:23–26, 4:58–64, 5:52–56, Figs. 1A, 4. As discussed above, however, Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure is not enclosed in a tubular housing in order to dissipate heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with the existing structure that a fluorescent light tube is inserted into. Id. at 2:50–56, 4:23–28, 4:51–64, Figs. 1A, 3, 4.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,566,895 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,566,895 - Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00613 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–14, 16–19, 21–24, and 26–31 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. See id. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. at 9 (“Regardless of which definition . . . is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). Therefore, to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Fred Holmes, and is consistent with the asserted prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 32.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 10. We determine that no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Sections II.D.1, II.E.1.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that Hasnain’s LED light emits at least 1000 lumens requires distributing LEDs on a heat-dissipating structure that transfers heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with another existing structure. Id. at 4:23–28, 4:51–5:6, Figs. 3, 4; see Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 49, 5 Figure 4 shows heat-dissipating structure 59, not heat-dissipating structure 47. Ex. 1008, Fig. 4. But Hasnain describes those structures similarly. Id. at 4:51–5:6. 66. Petitioner, though, does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would work when combined with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See Pet. 62–63; Pet. Reply 10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49. In particular, Petitioner does not explain how Hasnain’s heat- dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat to the surrounding air when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Petitioner also does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat via thermal contact with another existing structure when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Furthermore, Petitioner does not propose combining Ducharme and Hasnain so that Hasnain’s heatdissipating structure is in thermal contact with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently how the proposed combination of Ducharme and Hasnain was supposed to work. See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Board nowhere clearly explained, or cited evidence showing, how the combination of the two references was supposed to work.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve high lumen output, we determine that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the specific cited teachings of Ducharme and Hasnain.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,411,582 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,411,582 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 4, 2024 · IPR2022-01496 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because the cited combinations failed to teach required claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“including mobile device applications.” Pet. 8 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Petitioner also contends that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner adds that a POSA could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, but otherwise agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a POSA. PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 74–78). We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, but, add that the person of ordinary skill in the art could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science because that is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’187 patent and the prior art. Our Decision, however, would not be affected if we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill in the art. D. Claims 1–21: Obviousness in View of Poole and Hammad” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We credit Dr. Long’s uncontroverted testimony on the topic of “authentication,” which he supports with citations to objective evidence. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 26–31 (citing Ex. 2020, 594, 595, 626, 627, 632, 633, 636). He describes the three types of user authentication as being based upon what a user “knows,” “has,” or “is.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 28 (citing Ex. 2020, 627). He testifies that authentication based on what a user “knows” involves entering a user name and password or answering security questions. Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 2020, 632–633). He further explains that the second type of authentication based on a user providing something that they “have,” involves the user providing, for example, “a key to a door” or an “ATM card.” Id. ¶ 30 (citing Ex. 2020, 633). Regarding the last way of authentication, Dr. Long testifies that the third method, providing something that the user “is,” such as a user’s biometric characteristic like a fingerprint or image of a face. Id. ¶ 31 (citing Ex. 2020, 636).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, none of the cited material within Poole (¶¶ 32, 48, 88, 94) supports Petitioner’s contention. Poole’s ¶ 32 describes sensors 214 having a “sensor identifier” that “may be used by . . . customer device 220 . . . to identify and/or locate sensor 214,” but wholly fails to describe scanning a machine-readable element to decode location information. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. Poole’s ¶ 48 explains: information contained in signals transmitted by sensors 214 may include a Bluetooth identifier, Bluetooth profile, sensor identifier, and/or sensor position. The sensor identifier of each sensor 214 may be stored in association with a known position of sensor 214 in memory 306, storage medium 308, and/or database 314. Customer device 220 may retrieve a position or sensor identifier of sensor 214 located near customer device 220 based on the stored information. Id. ¶ 48. This paragraph similarly fails to describe that customer device 220 scans a barcode to decode location information, but instead describes device 220 receiving a wireless signal from sensor 214 used to obtain the position of the sensor from a database. Id. Barcodes are not discussed at all in Poole’s ¶ 48. Id.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,368,187 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,368,187 - Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2022-01509 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable over Poole and Hammad because the combination did not teach the claimed machine-readable element, and Poole did not teach the claimed scanning and decoding.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“priority date would have had a ‘bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with one to two years of experience in research, design, development, and/or testing of location-based systems including mobile device applications,’” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner adds that a person of ordinary skill in the art “could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, but otherwise agrees with Petitioner’s definition.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–58). We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, but, add that the person of ordinary skill in the art could also have a bachelor’s degree in computer science because that is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’188 patent and the prior art. Our Decision, however, would not be affected if we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction for any claim term. Pet. 8–9; PO Resp. 17. Based on our review of the record, we determine it is not necessary to construe expressly any claim term for the purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the disclosure of Poole and Hammad, we find that Petitioner’s argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that the QR code generated and displayed by Hammad would perform the same function as the barcode taught by Poole” (Pet. 16) is not supported by the evidence of record. Poole does not teach that a user can initiate a purchase transaction by scanning Poole’s barcode. Poole discloses that a bar code on sensor 214 can be scanned to identify the sensor and that a 5 Petitioner states: “[t]o the extent that Poole does not expressly disclose a ‘machine readable element generator . . .’, Hammad does.” Pet. 13. To the extent that this statement can be construed as an argument that Poole alone satisfies limitation 1[d], Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure that Poole teaches “a machine-readable element generator.” See Pet. 11–13. Petitioner relies on Poole’s disclosure in paragraph 94 of “scanning a bar code.” Id. at 12. Poole’s paragraph 94 does not address how the barcode is generated. Ex. 1006 ¶ 94. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Poole alone teaches “a machine-readable element generator” as recited in limitation 1[d]. bar code on a merchandise item is scanned to identify the merchandise item as part of the store inventory management process. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 94, 97. Petitioner, thus, does not persuade us that Hammad’s use of a QR code to initiate a purchase transaction is functionally equivalent to the use of Poole’s barcode.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Williams provides testimony that cites to the same evidence as the Petition and similarly concludes that Hammad’s QR code performs the same function as the barcode taught by Poole. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103–105. Because we find that Poole and Hammad themselves fail to support this conclusion, his testimony is unsupported and thus entitled to little, if any, weight. Additionally, he testifies that Poole’s mobile application scans the bar code. Id. ¶ 118. His testimony that Poole’s mobile application scans the barcode, like the Petition, relies on paragraphs 32 and 94 of Poole. Although Poole describes its customer device 220 wirelessly receiving “a coordinate position” of sensor 214, Poole does not describe its customer device 220 receiving location information by scanning a barcode. Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. When Poole does describe using a barcode to convey sensor identifiers including location information for the sensor, it does so in the context of its description of inventory management, but not in connection with the customer’s use of customer device 220. Id. ¶¶ 94, 95. Consequently, Mr. Williams’s testimony on this point is entitled to little, if any, weight because it is not supported by paragraphs 32 and 94 of Poole.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 10,368,188 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,368,188 - Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-01012 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine the cited references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed7 proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 12. In the Response, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed 7 Patent Owner did not challenge the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in the Preliminary Response. level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“ordinary meaning” and “[t]o the extent certain terms are subject to multiple interpretations, those questions do not affect the grounds advanced here.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116). Patent Owner “does not believe that the Board[] needs to expressly construe any claim limitation to find that the claims have not been proven unpatentable.” Resp. 13–14. There are no claim terms in dispute, so we need not expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“header with a sequence number. See Pet. 31; Resp. 20–21. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine G993.2 with Fukushima “[to] provid[e] improvements” (Pet. 22), but does not further explain what improvement to G993.2’s would result from the combination. Rather, Petitioner describes these improvements as “use of . . . packets with message counts and/or sequence IDs,” (id.), which provides nothing more than a statement of what claim 1 recites and what Fukushima discloses without any explanation as to what improvement is provided to G993.2 or why the use of packets with sequence IDs would improve G993.2. Petitioner’s asserted rationale for combining the references includes additional generic statements, e.g., by referring to “predictable benefits,” “predictable results described above,” and “these predictable, beneficial results” which are never specifically explained. See Pet. 22–23 (emphasis added). For example, Petitioner does not articulate why Fukushima’s sequence numbers would be an improvement or beneficial to G993.2’s “packets.” We recognize that Petitioner does not need to show “improvement” in a “categorical sense,” and need only show that Fukushima’s sequence numbers were a “suitable option,” see Intel Corp. v. process depicted in Figure 9[-]1, that data that flows from that process is in fact the packet.” Tr. 12:9–14. PACT KPP Schwiez AG, 61 F. 4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023), but in generically relying on “improvement” and “predictable, beneficial results” without further explanation, Petitioner has not established that Fukushima’s sequence numbers were a “suitable option” for G993.2’s “packets.” None of Petitioner’s assertions provide a sufficient reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine G993.2 with Fukushima as proposed. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (in an obviousness analysis, one must “determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”); In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “a conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding that there would have been a motivation to combine”). We, therefore, disagree with Petitioner that “Petitioner set forth numerous reasons a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would be motivated to combine” VDSL2, Mitlin, and Fukushima. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–148, 306–310); see also Reply 22–23.” slip op. at 25
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“At the hearing, Petitioner also relied on deposition testimony of Mr. McNair that G993.2 inherently discloses a sequence ID (Tr. 16:15–16), but this appears inconsistent with Petitioner’s position in the Reply, where “Petitioner describes the manner in which the ‘Sequence Identifier (SID)’ claim element is disclosed by Fukushima.” Reply 10. However, the testimony from Mr. McNair was cited in the Reply, stating that “VDSL2 ‘implicitly’ uses ‘some numbering of packets,’ such that there ‘has to be some kind of an indicator and the sequence number is one.’” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2020, 91:10–22); see also id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 2020, 91:23–25 (Mr. McNair testifying that “there’s got to be some kind of marker, whether you call it a sequence number or you call it some other kind of marker….”)). This theory of inherency is not argued in the Petition, and is therefore a new theory raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply, so we will not consider it. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73-74 (Nov. 2019)12 (explaining that “‘[r]espond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing,”). However, even assuming this is not an improper new argument, Petitioner has not established that G993.2’s “packet” inherently teaches a header field comprises a sequence identifier (SID), or addressed how this might affect the combination with Fukushima. PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A party must . . . meet a high standard in order to rely on inherency . . . —the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”). That is, we do not find that Mr. McNair’s testimony that “there has to be some kind of an indicator and the sequence number is one” supports that a sequence number is necessarily present in G993.2. Moreover, Petitioner’s inherency theory seems to be in tension with Petitioner’s contentions that the combination with Fukushima provides an improvement or benefit to G993.2.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,833,809 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,833,809 - Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00809 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 17–20, 22–24, 26, and 28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed a Bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, and at least 5–6 years of experience; a Master’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, and at least 2–3 years of experience; or a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, with at least 1–2 years of experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–33). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed7 proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 13. In the Response, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner asserts that “claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” and “[t]o the extent certain terms are subject to multiple interpretations, those questions do not affect the grounds advanced here.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–24, 116–118). Patent Owner “does not believe that the Board[] needs to expressly construe any claim limitation to find that the claims have not been proven unpatentable.” Resp. 13–14. There are no claim terms in dispute, so we need not expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Fukushima in the manner proposed.10 See Resp. 26; Sur-reply 17; see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)) (“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.”). Specifically, we determine that Petitioner has not provided sufficient rationale establishing why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified G993.2’s “packet”11 with Fukushima’s packet with a header including a sequence number. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (establishing that an invention would have been obvious requires “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“detail why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized the value of modifying VDSL2 by the disclosures of Fukushima.” Reply 19 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–148, 301–305, 314); see also Reply 28. Mr. McNair’s testimony is not only largely repetitive of the Petition, but similarly does not (1) provide any explanation as to what “improvements,” “predictable benefits,” or “value,” arises from the combination, or (2) even directly address the combination of G993.2’s “packet” with Fukushima’s sequence number. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 144, 145, 146; see ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comms., Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (2012) (describing expert testimony that “motivation to combine would be because you wanted to build something better . . . a system that was more efficient, cheaper, or you wanted a system that had more features” as “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of the prior art elements”).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,094,348 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,094,348 - Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.12 PO Resp. 16. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are materially similar. 12 Petitioner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Reply. definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Also, the Petition merely states that “Ono supports instances where the user stops the step-counting mode operation using switch S2 after the processor detects that” the target distance or the target number of steps has been reached and notifies the user by generating an alarm sound. Pet. 53 (emphasis added). In this case, supporting the notion of the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm is not the same as teaching or suggesting the notion to one of ordinary skill in the art. The possibility that a user could stop the step-counting operation in response the alarm is insufficient to render claims 1 and 20 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Petitioner’s reliance on the Hewlett-Packard and Unwired Planet cases (Pet. 56) is unavailing, as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present proceeding. Namely, both of those cases involved prior art references that disclosed operations that satisfied a claimed feature some, but not all, of the time. Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d at 1326; Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1002. Here, Ono does not disclose the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm even some of the time. In view of the above, we determine, based on the full record, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings does not disclose limitations [1f] or [20f]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 28
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We have determined incorporated Grounds 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4, as well as Ground 5A, deficient for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that any of these combinations somehow adds something to supplement or strengthen the patentability analysis of the incorporated grounds, we note that neither the Petition nor Dr. Kenny provides sufficient particularity to support such a position. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“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 grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 5B); (2) claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 31, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 49, and 61–65 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Conlan (Ground 6A); (3) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, and Hickman (Ground 6B); (4) claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Kaufman (Ground 7); (5) claims 1–5, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45–47, 49, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, and Kaufman (Ground 8A); and (6) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 8B).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,059,576
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.