• Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2024 · IPR2020-01557 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–4 and 8–11 were held obvious; claims 5–7 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish claim 5’s drive-roller limitation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandFwd mixedMixed

    “Specifically, the Federal Circuit “reverse[d] the Board’s finding that Weber’s operating manuals do not qualify as printed publications.” Weber, 1 Patent Owner also submitted redacted versions of its Preliminary Response, Response, and Sur-Reply. Papers 8, 24, 48. The redactions relate to information subject to our Protective Orders. Papers 13, 57. 92 F.4th at 1069. The Federal Circuit further held that the prior art disclosed the “disposed over” limitation of claim 1 as properly construed, as well as the “stop gate” limitation of claim 1. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1069–1072. In addition, the Federal Circuit indicated it had considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and found them unpersuasive. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1072. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated our determinations that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability of claims 1–11 of the ’812 patent, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1072.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field)” or “(2) at least seven years of experience working on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field).” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition or provide its own proposal. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill demonstrated in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “disposed over the food article loading apparatus.” The Federal Circuit reversed the construction set forth in the prior FWD and held that the “disposed over” limitation “requires only that the feed apparatus be generally positioned above the loading apparatus.” Weber, 92 F.4th at 1070. We follow the Federal Circuit’s construction of “disposed over” in this decision. We need not provide an express construction for any other claim terms to resolve the dispute before us. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). We note, though, that in reaching our conclusion, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning to all claim terms. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the preamble of claim 1 is disclosed by each of the slicing machines disclosed in 2006 904 Operating Manual, Lindee, and Sandberg. Thus, we need not and do not decide whether the preamble is limiting.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,639,812 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,639,812
• Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2020-01557 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–4 and 8–11 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 5–7 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish claim 5’s recessed-diameter limitation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Specifically, the Federal Circuit “reverse[d] the Board’s finding that Weber’s operating manuals do not qualify as printed publications.” Weber, 1 Patent Owner also submitted redacted versions of its Preliminary Response, Response, and Sur-Reply. Papers 8, 24, 48. The redactions relate to information subject to our Protective Orders. Papers 13, 57. 92 F.4th at 1069. The Federal Circuit further held that the prior art disclosed the “disposed over” limitation of claim 1 as properly construed, as well as the “stop gate” limitation of claim 1. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1069–1072. In addition, the Federal Circuit indicated it had considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and found them unpersuasive. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1072. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated our determinations that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability of claims 1–11 of the ’812 patent, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Weber, 92 F.4th at 1072.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field)” or “(2) at least seven years of experience working on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field).” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition or provide its own proposal. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill demonstrated in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “disposed over the food article loading apparatus.” The Federal Circuit reversed the construction set forth in the prior FWD and held that the “disposed over” limitation “requires only that the feed apparatus be generally positioned above the loading apparatus.” Weber, 92 F.4th at 1070. We follow the Federal Circuit’s construction of “disposed over” in this decision. We need not provide an express construction for any other claim terms to resolve the dispute before us. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). We note, though, that in reaching our conclusion, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning to all claim terms. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019).” slip op. at 10

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

    “the structure and function of the 2006 904 Operating Manual’s product holder and Lindee’s grippers are similar in that they serve to grip food product and guide it to the slicing station. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 23; Ex. 1006, 18:20–35, Fig. 7A. The two devices differ in their actuation—the 2006 904 Operating Manual uses a ball screw spindle actuator to drive the product holder along the feed path, whereas Lindee uses a timing belt 334 to drive its grippers 151 along the feed path. Ex. 1005, 273–274; Ex. 1006, 18:33–34, Fig. 7A. However, Petitioner presented evidence that “unlike ball screws, belt drives do not require periodic lubrication with grease or exhibit backlash when they change direction.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 160. In addition, Petitioner demonstrates that a POSA at the time would have understood that conveyor belts like Lindee’s can be easily cleaned. Ex. 1051 ¶¶ 50–54. Petitioner further asserted that conveyor belts are easy to maintain at low cost. Id. citing ¶¶ 55–58. We agree with Petitioner that, at least for some scenarios, including those that Petitioner specifies, a POSA would have seen that there were advantages to using Lindee’s timing belt rather than the 2006 904 Operating Manual’s ball-screw to drive food article grippers. Petitioner has demonstrated a POSA would have been motivated to combine Lindee’s belt-driven grippers in the 2006 904 Operating Manual’s food slicer notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 10,639,812 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,639,812
• Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00189 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 8, and 11–16 are unpatentable over Arrasvuori; claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 17–20 are not unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’256 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Lynch (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 44).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “simultaneously communicate in real-time to the first user at the first location and the second user at the second location, an interface indicating whether the challenge has been met.” Ex. 1001, 40:64–67 (emphasis added). The claim language itself suggests that “continuously generat[ing]” an interface in “real-time” allows the interface to indicate whether a challenge “has been met,” and doing so “in real-time” suggests that updates to the interface are generated as developments occur that may affect whether the challenge “has been met.” Notably, the subject claim limitation explicitly recites “continuously” generating the interface “in real-time”; it does not recite— but easily could have if intended—“periodically” generating the interface (i.e., at predetermined time intervals independent of the occurrence of developments that may affect whether the challenge has been met).3” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) based on its filing and publication dates. Pet. 24. Patent Owner does not contest the prior art status of Arrasvuori. Also, on this record, we have no evidence of an invention date other than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Arrasvuori’s publication date of October 11, 2007, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is March 3, 2008, and under § 102(e) because Arrasvuori’s filing date of March 29, 2006, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims (March 3, 2008). Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60), (63); Ex. 1005, code (22), (43).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Arrasvuori discloses (a) “[m]onitoring” of “users performing real- world fitness tasks” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38), using (b) “monitoring equipment . . . integrated into . . . wireless nodes and/or other computers of users, and/or [] attached to bodies of users” (id. at ¶ 39 (emphasis added)), where (c) “[u]sers might . . . wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers” (id. (emphasis added)), and where (d) “[t]he phrase[] ‘computer’ . . . refer[s] but [is] not limited to . . . a computerized watch” (id. at ¶ 90 (emphasis added); see id. at ¶ 40 (disclosing that “employed monitoring equipment might include one or more sensors”)). We find that these descriptions in Arrasvuori provide an anticipatory disclosure, particularly to the skilled artisan, of the limitation “wirelessly-connected sensor worn on an appendage of a first user.” See Ex. 1017 ¶ 45; Ex. 2006, 84:10-85:22. Although Arrasvuori does not recite in a single sentence the substance of disclosures (a) through (d) above, such as explicitly stating that its “wireless node is a computerized watch,” this is not necessary for the skilled artisan to understand that Arrasvuori discloses such a feature. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832–33 (anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”). Moreover, as argued by Petitioner, Arrasvuori’s disclosure of sensors “attached to bodies of users” and of users “wear[ing]” sensors itself discloses the subject limitation as broadly recited, even without considering the additional disclosure of a computerized watch. See Pet. Reply 17 (“Arrasvuori teaches wrist-worn sensors by stating that its users can ‘wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers.’” (citing Ex. 1005 ¶39)).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,278,256 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,278,256
• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. SWM International, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01372 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 7, 24–26, 29, 30, and 34–36 are unpatentable as anticipated by Yonghong and Hardesty; claims 4 and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor of Science in mechanical or electrical engineering and 2–5 years of experience designing perforating gun systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[t]he individual should be familiar with prior art methods of using gravity to orient the shaped charges in a rotatable charge tube.” Id. Petitioner further contends that “[p]ersons with different degrees may also have ordinary skill in the art, and increased education or experience could compensate for shortcomings in other areas.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7–8. We apply Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the Specification of the ’762 Patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the term “collar.” Inst. Dec. 10. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction is undisputed and supported by the ’762 Patent’s description of “outer collar 24” as having “annular side wall 62” (Ex. 1001, 7:59–63, Fig. 3), we construe a “collar” as “an annular or ring-shaped structure.”” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Yonghong discloses a “collar,” as recited in the claims. Petitioner identifies Yonghong’s bushing 4 as the recited “collar.” Pet. 30–31. As discussed below, the evidence shows that bushing 4 is annular or ring-shaped, as set forth in our claim construction.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “expert, Dr. Rodgers, who provided a 3-D CAD (three-dimensional computer aided design) model based on Yonghong’s disclosure. Ex. 1003 ¶ 38. Dr. Rodgers’ 3-D CAD model shows an annular or ring-shaped structure corresponding to Yonghong’s bushing 4. Id. At his deposition, Dr. Rodgers explained that Yonghong Figure 1 shows some parts as “half model cuts,” other parts as “a quarter cut-away,” and still other parts in “full circumference,” i.e., “[t]hey’re not cut at all.” Ex. 2008, 37:11–20. The gun carrier is shown as a half cut, and the bushing 4 is shown as a quarter-cut. Id. at 57:24–58:11, 65:3–12. Referring to bushing 4 in Yonghong Figure 1, Dr. Rodgers explained that “[a] person of ordinary skill looks at that and understands it’s a quarter-cut model, and that’s one continuous part, a ring that wraps around the bearing.” Id. at 65:13–22; see also 60:17–24 (“A bushing or a collar slides around the outside of the bearing, or another way to say it is the bearing fits within that bushing or collar to mount it in the carrier.”). According to Dr. Rodgers, there is no need for the text of Yonghong to include this description “because a person of ordinary skill looks at this v[e]ry standard drawing and understands what it is.” Id. at 60:25–61:2.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 11,078,762 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,078,762
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00914 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 105 and 106 are unpatentable as obvious over Heller and Mastrototaro; Abbott did not prove claims 49, 80, 81, 85, or 86 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “on the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to disclose the predictive relationship limitation of claim 49 not taught by Heller are legally deficient. Resp. 28–38. We agree in that Petitioner’s contentions in the Petition amount to no more than a conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known” the predictive relationship limitation. See Pet. 38–39. Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition are divorced from any analysis of Heller and fail to articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Heller to teach the predictive relationship in light of what was purportedly known more generally in the art. Merely asserting that a particular limitation was “known in the art” does not constitute a legally sufficient basis for establishing obviousness. See, e.g., Deere, 383 U.S. at 17–18. While Petitioner purports to identify multiple references that teach a predictive relationship, Petitioner circumvents a legally sufficient obviousness analysis by choosing not to assert any of the references in combination with Heller, but to instead argue they all collectively show that “predictive relationships” were broadly known in the art. See Pet. 28–33. Rather than establish some broad understanding by persons of ordinary skill in the art concerning the predictive relationship limitation, Petitioner’s arguments make clear that each reference uniquely addressed the relationship between a particular sensor and the in vivo performance of the sensor. For example, Petitioner asserts Gross teaches a sensor for which “the pre-insertion, factory-determined in vitro performance curve and” slip op. at 32

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

    “level in Gross is a “measure of sensor current, not ‘analyte concentration’ is contrary to the express disclosure of Gross. Gross expressly discloses a calibration method that requires, after insertion the in vivo measurement of a saturation level G1 “which can be measured by the sensor and which is of importance for the calibration method.” Ex. 1004, 13:3–18 (further stating that a “voltage V1 (FIG. 4C) applied at time t1 gives a current I1, (FIG. 4B) which corresponds to the saturation level G1 (FIG. 4A) of the enzyme”). Gross explains that “the predetermined stimulus is adapted to saturate the sensor such that the first signal is a maximum signal,” and “[w]hen a sensor is such that it can be saturated by a sufficiently large stimulus, it can be preferable to use this phenomenon in calibrating the sensor as it enables a reproducible first predetermined stimulus, i.e. a saturation stimulus to be provided in all cases, thereby removing uncertainty as to whether the means for providing a predetermined stimulus will in fact achieve exactly the right level of uncertainty.” Id. at 3:17–26.” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness. 5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pers. Web Tech., LLC, v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[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”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In light of the foregoing multiple critical misrepresentations, Petitioner’s MTE is denied regarding sufficiency of Dr. Baura’s qualifications because Petitioner did not timely object to the evidence on the basis asserted in the MTE, fails to refute Patent Owner’s showing that Dr. Baura is sufficiently qualified (see MTE Opp. 3–7; Ex. 2010 ¶ 30), and abandons its argument in its Reply to the MTE.” slip op. at 57

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00913 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Heller; the evidence does not establish claims 4–6, 8, or 23–26 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In opposition, Patent Owner first argues, and we agree, that Petitioner failed to timely object to Dr. Laura’s declaration with sufficient particularity. MTE Opp. 1–3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Our Rule requires that an “objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)). Petitioner’s objection to Dr. Baura’s testimony identifies hundreds of paragraphs from her declaration followed by an objection stating her “testimony is based on insufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and does not reliably apply the appropriate principles and methods to the fact of the case.” Paper 25, 2. Petitioner’s boilerplate objection is woefully insufficient to show that Petitioner objected with sufficiently particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental information, as our Rule requires. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments in the MTE are no more than a “transparent attempt to . . . circumvent the word-count limits of its merits briefing by injecting merits arguments in its evidentiary motion.” MTE Opp. 9. In short, Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight to be afforded Dr. Baura’s testimony, not to its admissibility, and are, therefore, an improper basis for seeking the exclusion of hundreds of paragraphs Dr. Baura’s declaration. Accordingly, Petitioner’s MTE is denied.” slip op. at 63

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Resp. 9. Dr. Baura, in support of Patent Owner, states that she applied Petitioner’s “definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, because,” in her opinion, Petitioner’s “and Dr. Smith’s conclusions are incorrect even under this definition.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 29. Thus, Dr. Baura neither adopts as proper nor refutes Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We find that the ’213 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and the ’213 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 17

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

    “In view of the issues we address below, including how the claimed subject matter is alleged to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art, we determine that it is not otherwise necessary to address the express interpretation of any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s anticipation argument is insufficiently supported by Heller or the other evidence Petitioner relies upon. Petitioner directs us to no evidence in Heller expressly addressing a predictive relationship between in vitro and in vivo sensitivity, much less any disclosure in Heller of a particular relationship. Instead, Petitioner seeks to stretch a thin disclosure in Heller that “calibration data may simply be factory-determined calibration measurements” to necessarily mean “prior sensitivity information is derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro sensor sensitivity to glucose and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” as required by claim 23. Pet. 36; Ex. 1005, 77:14–15. Notably, Dr. Smith does not identify any “predictive relationship” disclosed by Heller. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 148–149. We give little weight to Dr. Smith’s conclusory assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have simply “recognized” Heller’s “factory determined calibration measurements” were necessarily “derived at least in part from a predictive relationship between an in vitro and an in vivo sensor sensitivity to glucose,” particularly where Heller does not expressly preclude in vitro measurements from its “factory determined calibration measurements.” See id. Further, in reply, Petitioner argues again that “(1) Heller discloses that calibration data can ‘simply be factory determined calibration measurements’ . . . and (2) a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that this ‘discloses that factory (in vitro) determined sensitivity adequately predicts in vivo sensitivity.’” Reply 6. From Heller’s disclosure preponderance of the evidence that Heller expressly teaches any predictive relationship, even one in which in vitro and in vivo sensitivity are the same. that calibration data can “simply be factory determined calibration measurements,” Petitioner provides no more than speculation to suggest that there necessarily must be some relationship between in vitro measurements and in vivo measurements. See Reply 6–8. Because Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Heller discloses all of the limitations of clam 23, we determine Petitioner has not shown that Heller anticipates claim 23.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,000,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,000,213
• Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v. Dexcom, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00909 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 19, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “including a “predictive glucose value,” nowhere do we find the written description or drawings to have delineated such a second function expressly as “the present invention.” See, generally, Ex. 1001; see also Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. HOC Events, Inc., 22 F.4th 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“We have repeatedly held that ‘it is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation to limit claims beyond their plain meaning.’”) (citation omitted). And, regardless of the exact wording, the concern we have is that without a persuasive, express, indication in the specification that the “second function” is specifically limited to “predicting glucose values,” it is a disfavored path to read limitations into the claims. Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import limitations into a claim that are not expressly part of may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The facts and written description here appear to fall more squarely into the category of cases where it is not enough to simply point to embodiments in the specification including the unrecited claim limitation. See Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. Ag, 318 F.3d 1081, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Even in cases where a “present invention” statement is provided, the Federal Circuit has explained that ‘[w]hile clear language characterizing ‘the present invention’ may limit the ordinary meaning of claim terms, . . . such language must be read in context of the entire specification and the prosecution history.”) (citation omitted); see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41.” slip op. at 35

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

    “second function.” PO Resp. 19. However, neither did Patent Owner provide an express construction. See generally id. is any disagreement about the meaning of “a second function” apart from the argument by Patent Owner that the second function should be understood to include “a predictive glucose value.” We are not apprised of any reason for Petitioner to provide an express construction for “second function” in this case. The plain and ordinary reading of limitation 1b is a method step of “evaluating sensor data using a second function to determine whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Ex. 1001, 48:39–41. As far as “second function” goes, the claim language is clear on its face that the second function “determine[s] whether a parameter indicative of glucose value meets one or more non user settable second criteria.” Id. Patent Owner has not offered any construction, nor apart from criticizing Petitioner, indicated in any manner that the “second function” as recited in claims 1 and 19 requires a construction. Our understanding of “second function” is consistent with the specification of the ’215 patent. A plain reading of the specification reveals that the first criteria relates to the claimed “first function,” and the “second criteria” relates to the claimed “second function.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 3:44–49 (The ’215 Patent describing “a processor configured to: evaluate sensor data using a first function to determine whether a real time glucose value meets one or more first criteria; evaluate sensor data using a second function to determine whether a predicted glucose value meets one or more second criteria.”). The specification description is therefore mostly consistent with the recitations in claim 1 with respect to the first and second functions and relative first and second criteria. Compare id., with Ex. 1001, 48:36–41. slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision we determined, in accordance with Petitioner’s proposal, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’215 patent [w]ould have had a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering, mathematics, statistics, or computer science (or a related or equivalent field), and two or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) medical devices for measuring analyte levels, e.g., analyte sensors, including at least some experience in researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating (or supervising the same) methods, systems, or algorithms for providing indicators (e.g., alerts, alarms or other indicators) of analyte levels to users, or equivalent experience. A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard. Inst. Dec. 8; Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner states that “DexCom does not challenge Petitioner’s POSA definition (Petition, 9-10) because the Petition fails even if it is adopted.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 20–23). ordinary skill in the art, and because Petitioner’s assessment is consistent with the ’215 patent and the asserted prior art, we continue to rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,702,215 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,702,215
• C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2019-00035 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 16, 25–27, 29–37, and 39–44 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 17–19, 28, and 38 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “IPR2019-00208 and this proceeding do not involve an “identical issue” despite Patent Owner relying on essentially the same body of objective evidence of nonobviousness in both proceedings. The challenged claims in this proceeding materially differ from those at issue in IPR2019- 00208. Compare Ex. 1001, 27:47–30:57, with IPR2019-00208, Ex. 1001, 11:47–12:28; see also PO Remand Br. 23. The material differences in the claims, alone, and thus the issues previously decided, precludes a finding of collateral estoppel. Therefore, we conclude that Patent Owner is not collaterally estopped from relying upon its objective evidence of nonobviousness. Rather, we consider and weigh that evidence as it applies to the claims at issue in this proceeding below.” slip op. at 54

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

    “However, we disagree with Patent Owner’s interpretation of limitation 1a as requiring that the compartment for receiving the medical assembly be “distinct” from the first compartment or that the medical assembly be disposed within the “compartment” of limitation 1a. Limitation 1f requires “at least two compartments,” but expressly recites a functional limitation for only “a first compartment” among the “at least two compartments.” Ex. 1001, 27:60–62. Claim 1 does not further limit the unspecified compartment among the “at least two compartments” or specify what items, if any, are placed within it. See id. at 27:47–67. Two unchallenged dependent claims, claims 4 and 11, further recite that “the at least two compartments” further comprise “a second compartment.” Claim 4 depends directly from claim 1 and further recites, in pertinent part: “the at least two compartments further comprising a second compartment separated from the first compartment by a wall with an opening, further comprising a catheter assembly disposed within the second compartment, the catheter assembly comprising a fluid bag.” Id. at 28:21–25 (emphasis added). Claim 11 depends from claim 10, which depends from claim 1, and similarly recites: “the at least two compartments further comprising a second compartment separated from the first compartment by a wall with an opening, further comprising a catheter assembly disposed within the second compartment.” Id. at 28:47–51 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the relevant art would have a bachelor’s degree in packaging engineering, mechanical engineering, or industrial design. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–16); PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 38). Alternatively, such a person could have an engineering degree in another technical field along with about two years of experience designing medical packaging. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–16); PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 38). Neither party contends that a person of ordinary skill needs to be a medical practitioner, but both parties agree that the person of ordinary skill would consult with medical practitioners familiar with catheterization procedures. Pet. 18; PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 78). Slight differences exist in the formulation of the level of ordinary skill between the parties. We, however, discern no meaningful difference because none of those differences would affect the outcome of our analysis. Accordingly, we apply the level of skill set forth in the preceding paragraph.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “Petitioner argues that shallow area 11B “facilitates easy lubrication of the catheter” simply because it is shallow and “it was well-known to ‘(a) apply lubricant directly on the catheter; and (b) use the same compartment where lubricant is stored to lubricate the catheter.’” Pet. Remand Br. 28–29 (citing Pet. 32, 34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 231). Patent Owner persuasively responds, however, that a practitioner would not use the same compartment to collect urine and lubricate the catheter because the lubricant would contaminate the urine specimen collected in the compartment. PO Remand Br. 3–4 (citing PO Resp. 36; Op. *8); see also Ex. 2027 ¶ 175 (Ms. Chiappetta testifying that “lubrication in the portion of the tray that collects urine will contaminate the urine,” which would invalidate any testing of the patient’s urine). Although it may be easier to lubricate a catheter in shallow area 11B than in deep area 11A, we find that Solazzo’s shallow area 11B is not well-suited, configured, or intended for lubricating a catheter; rather, Solazzo recommends using lubricating wells 31 and 33 for that purpose. We credit Ms. Chiappetta’s supporting testimony to that effect. See Ex. 2027 ¶ 175. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the combined teachings of Solazzo and Serany render claim 7 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,745,088 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,745,088
• Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01461 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 8–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–7 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed withdrawing-conveyor combinations do not support the claimed advancing operation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our understanding on the evidence before us. The prior art addressed the same or similar problem as the ’513 Patent, specifically, the filling of packages with food product during the dwell period when the machinery is stationary while a new group of packages is being formed. Ex. 1001, 1:22–41; Ex. 1005, 2:10–18; Ex. 1006, 8–9, Fig. 4; Ex. 1007, 1–2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 12, 57, 108–111, 133, 206–207. Other problems recognized in the art include food insertion accuracy, non-disturbance of shingled or stacked food product during deposition in containers, and efficiency in filling containers with food product. Ex. 1001, 1:42–47; Ex. 1005, 2:5–9; Ex. 1006, 1–3; Ex. 1007, 1–2. The prior art also taught solutions to these problems, and the technology needed to carry out those solutions. Ex. 1005, 2:10–18; Ex. 1006, 8–9, Fig. 4; Ex. 1007, 1–2. Petitioner’s statement of the educational level and experience is consistent with that needed to implement the solutions set out in the ’513 Patent and in the prior art. Accordingly, we apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in this decision. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that “food product drafts” recited in the claims is a term of art that means “piles, bunches or groups of thin sliced product.” PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:42–43); see also Ex. 1001, 1:48–52, 2:12–17, 2:22–30, 5:53–54; Ex. 2002 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not contend, however, that its proposed construction of “drafts” would have any effect on interpretation of the steps recited in the claims. Accordingly, we decline to construe “drafts” as Patent Owner proposes, but instead apply the ordinary and customary meaning of “drafts” as “sliced foods” or “sliced food product.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 80.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “multi-fill” depositing of a row of drafts at a time. But the claim language is broader and also covers “piece-by-piece” or “one by one” deposition, for example, when drafts have a staggered arrangement on the conveyor belt, and drafts are deposited one by one in the pockets of each row. We find no language in the ’513 Patent, its claims, or its file history, that restricts the claims to “multi-fill” deposition as Patent Owner uses the term. More particularly, the claims do not recite any particular timing or order for how the drafts are deposited: the claims merely require depositing a row of drafts in package pockets at each of the first and second positions. Patent Owner further contends that the ’513 Patent touts that multi- draft deposit with a 4x4 array of drafts is deposited into four rows, which increases production speed by 400%. PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:4–11; Ex. 2002 ¶ 38). The cited part of the ’513 Patent does not mention increasing production. It does, however, convey that the dwell time may be quite short, lasting a few to several seconds, from which one might surmise that “multi-fill” deposition may be advantageous in saving time in depositing drafts during the dwell period. But this falls far short of expressing a “manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We decline to restrict the claim only to “multi-fill” deposition. slip op. at 14

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

    “2 We determine the preamble is not limiting because it does not recite essential structure or steps, nor is it necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 1367 (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). To the contrary, the claim body defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble merely states the purpose of the invention, which is to fill food product drafts into packages. See id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Even assuming the preamble is limiting, Petitioner has shown it is taught by the prior art and Patent Owner does not dispute this evidence.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,533,513 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,533,513
• BMW Of North America, LLC / Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Theodore & Associates, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2018 · IPR2017-01380 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 4, 19, 23, 24, 27–31, 35, 44–46, 48, and 49 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3, 6, 8–10, 32–34, 36, 37, and 43 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Kunselman, neither of whom supports his opinion with objective evidence. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20); PO Resp. 11–12 (referring to Mr. Kunselman’s opinion appearing at Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 15–21); Reply 20–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20; Ex. 1061 ¶¶ 11–13). The level of skill is determined “in the art to which the claimed invention pertains,” 35 U.S.C. § 103, and neither party identifies that art explicitly. The Specification describes the field of invention as follows: “This invention is related to the field of automotive chassis design and more specifically to the area of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles.” Ex. 1001, 1:17–19. The Specification repeatedly refers to the chassis as having “universal” characteristics. Id. at Title, passim. The Specification also describes an advantage of its chassis as having “an ability to adapt to different bodies and body styles,” id. at 2:17–21, and criticizes prior art chassis designs that “are not readily adaptable to a wide variety of vehicles without forcing major and expensive redesign work for each vehicle,” id. at 1:29–33. Claims 43 and 44 expressly require that the claimed chassis be “universally adapted” for more than one type of vehicular configuration. Id. at 16:40–17:19. Based on these descriptions of the chassis and the express requirements in at least some of the claims at issue, we determine that the art to which the claimed invention pertains is the design of interchangeable chassis for use with many models of vehicles. We consider Mr. Kunselman’s testimony on the level of ordinary skill to be tied more closely to this relevant art of designing a chassis for use with many models of vehicles. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision and evaluate priority of invention and obviousness from that perspective. We note that both Mr. Parker and Mr. Kunselman possess such a skill level. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–13; Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 4–9.” slip op. at 7

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateNot entitled to earlier dateMixed

    “in claims 9 and 32–43 when it states that: “During attachment of the central backbone between the front and rear structures, the operational components (e.g., quill shaft for conventional vehicle, battery for electric or hybrid vehicle), are suitably coupled or connected.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 43. Based on this disclosure in the ’490 App, Mr. Kunselman opines without citing any objective evidence in support that: “The only suitable connection it could be is a wire and a cable. No other option has ever been used, not a metal tab, buss bar, or printed circuit board.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 75 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 43). Because the testimony cited by the parties on this issue leads to stalemate, we examine other aspects of the ’490 App and other evidence. Figure 16 of the ’490 App, reproduced at right, illustrates batteries located in a central structure that connects one end of a chassis with a generator to the other end of the chassis with an electric motor. Mr. Parker testifies that components such as wires connecting batteries were “conventional components” that were “well known” and “found in almost all vehicles decades before the ’163 patent was filed.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. Figure 16 illustrates batteries within the central spine of the plug-in hybrid chassis, along with the generator on one end, which would charge those batteries, and an e-motor on the other end, which would be powered by those batteries. Ex. 1006, Figure 16. Both experts agree that an electrical wire is a well known type of electrical connection that would be suitable. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61, Ex. 2012 ¶ 75. On the record before us, we determine that Figure 16 in the ’490 App, along with the description of batteries being “suitably coupled and connected” constitutes a description of an electrical connection spanning the batteries within the central spine and to components connected to opposite ends of that spine. This is especially true given the high degree of skill possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. Such an artisan would have no trouble recognizing that the ’490 App described using wire to connect batteries located within the central structure and that those wires would span the entire central spine. Ex. 2012 ¶ 75. For this reason, we determine that the wire features of claims 9, 32–37, and 43 are supported by the description in the ’490 App.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “lexicographically define “chassis” but merely describes “another aspect of the universal chassis apparatus.” Reply 17–18. We agree. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002). It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express an intent” to redefine the term. Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2008); see also Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed.Cir.2009). At most, we understand the passage quoted by Patent Owner to be describing aspects of the “universal chassis apparatus” rather than providing a lexicographical definition of “chassis.” Petitioner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that “chassis” generally refers to the supporting structure or frame upon which the vehicle’s body, drive train, and suspension components are mounted. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Petitioner notes that such an understanding is consistent with the definitions of “chassis” provided in two automotive industry dictionaries, one of which is provided by Patent Owner. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 2024;5 Ex. 1063, 45:4–46:2, 46:20–47:14, 52:15–24; Ex. 1061, ¶ 25); see also Ex. 1052, 3 (defining “chassis” as the “[s]tructural lower part of a vehicle to which the running 5 Exhibit 2024 is an excerpt of a 1993 publication entitled “Auto Dictionary” in which “chassis” is defined as follows: “Lower structure of a vehicle to which the running gear and body are attached. On older cars, the chassis was a separate part of the vehicle with its own frame but, today, it is usually an integral part of the body structure.” Ex. 2024, 3. gear6 and body is attached.”). Mr. Kunselman testifies that “a variety of possible definitions for a chassis” exist. Ex. 1063, 74:12–14. Petitioner also points out that Patent Owner’s proffered definition for “chassis” conflicts with the Abstract of the ’163 patent, which indicates that “other components” including the suspension are attached to—and therefore separate from—a “vehicle chassis.” Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract, Ex. 1061 ¶ 26). Based on our review of the entire record, we conclude that “chassis” is neither precisely defined in the Specification nor understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to have a precise universally agreed upon definition. Rather, “chassis” refers generally to the supporting structure or frame upon which the vehicle’s body, drive train, and suspension components are mounted.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive for at least three reasons. First, claims 2 and 27 merely require that the backbone have two sections or segments that together define “a substantially T-shape as viewed from above.” Ex. 1001, 13:41–44 (claim 2), 15:15–24 (claim 27). Even with Brandt’s heel plate 40 positioned between the compartments holding battery units 24 and 28, we consider the combination of Brandt’s two compartments to be arranged in “a substantially T-shape as viewed from above” as recited in claims 2 and 27. Additionally, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Third, both Greil and Brandt describe locating batteries in the lower central portion of a vehicle. Ex. 1016, ¶ 38, Figure 5; Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 21– 22, Figure 1. Brandt explicitly suggests arranging batteries in a T-shape configuration. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 21–22, Figure 1. We conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that the combination of Greil and Brandt renders claims 2, 4, and 27–31 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 9,045,163 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,045,163

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.