- Composite Materials Technology, Inc. v. Greatbatch, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-01441 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, the fact that two references relate to the same general subject matter is not, by itself, sufficient to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify one reference in view of the other; it demonstrates at most that the two references are in the same field of endeavor. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577–78 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Nor is an alleged admission that Fife and Stephenson are prior art to the ’075 patent sufficient to explain why these two references would be combined in a manner necessary to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 389, 418–19 (2007) (“[I]nventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.”). In support of the Petition, Mr. Frost generally reiterates Petitioner’s arguments, stating: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Fife and Stephenson since both Fife and Stephenson relate to methods for producing tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and both Fife and Stephenson constitute admitted prior art mentioned specifically in the ’075 Patent.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 32. Mr. Frost does not explain, however, why either of these factors would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to use Stephenson’s higher formation voltages in Fife. Thus, this testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (expert testimony regarding motivation to combine is insufficient if it is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements” and “fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does”); see also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that “[l]ack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations” may “render the testimony of little probative value”). As Petitioner provides insufficient rationale to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures of Fife and Stephenson in a manner necessary to achieve the claimed invention, it has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over those references. And, because challenged claims 2–11 and 13–18 each depend from claim 1, and because the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding claim 1 are not remedied by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding claims 2–11 and 13–18, Petitioner has likewise not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the subject matter of those claims would have been obvious over Fife and Stephenson.6” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In support of the Petition, Mr. Frost generally reiterates Petitioner’s arguments, stating: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Fife and Stephenson since both Fife and Stephenson relate to methods for producing tantalum electrolytic capacitors, and both Fife and Stephenson constitute admitted prior art mentioned specifically in the ’075 Patent.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 32. Mr. Frost does not explain, however, why either of these factors would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to use Stephenson’s higher formation voltages in Fife. Thus, this testimony is entitled to little, if any, weight. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (expert testimony regarding motivation to combine is insufficient if it is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements” and “fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does”); see also Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (explaining that “[l]ack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual determinations” may “render the testimony of little probative value”).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,312,075 - Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,079,864 - Talari Networks, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks India LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00976 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable; claim 19 was not shown unpatentable, because Karol anticipates some claims and Karol, alone or with Stallings, renders others obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“selecting paths. See id. 5:48–50. These methods allow for the selection to “be performed once per packet, or a given selection may pertain to multiple packets.” Id. at 14:40–46 (emphasis added). Thus, we find that the specification discloses both selection for each individual packet and selection for a group of packets.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“with either a manual or an automated environment. The cited passage distinguished routing by departments from dynamic load balancing by stating that the department-based routing is not dynamic because in dynamic load balancing the “router loads dynamically in response to actual traffic.” Id. at 2:63–64. We find that the cited passages show that the contemplated load balancing is performed based on actual traffic, but are insufficient to establish that the Patentee intended load balancing to be equated with a manual selection process. See Id. at 2:61–65, 7:31–32. Further, we are not convinced by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the alleged requirement that traffic be assessed at some point after the packet’s arrival. The portion of the specification cited in support of this assertion refers to multiple scenarios or “cases.” See PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:53–58). The specification states that in one of those cases the path may be determined after the packet arrives and states that, for example, the path determination may be done using dynamic load balancing. See Ex. 1001, 14:53–58. This passage does not provide any specific temporal limitation to the term “dynamic load balancing,” but rather it illustrates an example of when load balancing could be used. It is improper to limit the claims to this one exemplary embodiment without more express language in the claims or the specification that would narrow the scope of this term. Thus, we find that the proper construction of dynamic load balancing is “distributing packets based on actual traffic.”” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“selection for each packet then Karol would have rendered this limitation obvious. Pet. 45. Petitioner asserts that this limitation would have been obvious because (1) modifying Karol to select networks on a per-packet basis would have amounted to nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (id. at 45); and (2) the combination of Karol and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to try (id. at 46).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Karol discloses sending different packets of a given message to different parallel networks. Karol does not describe any logical grouping of datagrams into a message. Ex. 2001 ¶¶72–74. On behalf of Patent Owner, Mr. Williams testifies that “Karol . . . never describes dividing up messages and sending those across disparate networks.” Id. ¶ 73. We note, that Karol uses the terms datagram and message in an interchangeable manner. See Ex. 1006, 1:10, 3:34–35 (“datagrams (sometimes hereinafter called messages)”). Karol also interchanges the terms packet and datagram. See id. 5:23–25. Thus, the mere use of the term “message” in Karol is not sufficient to show that Karol uses the term in the same manner as it is used in claim 19. We find Karol’s use of the terms datagram, packet, and message to be consistent with the ’235 patent’s use of the term packet because Karol treats these terms as disclosing a discrete unit of transmission that may be stored, halted, or turned around. Petitioner’s discussion of UDP segments is insufficient to establish that packets from a given message are sent to different networks because it is not clear from Karol’s disclosures that these UDP segments should be considered to be a “message.” Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 19 is anticipated by Karol.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,775,235 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,775,235 - Talari Networks, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks India LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00977 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are anticipated by Karol; all claims are obvious over Karol.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownGranted in part
“information to be gleaned by construing the words selecting/selects to mean “make a choice.” We also are not persuaded that there is a basis for inserting the word “discrete” into this construction. Therefore, based on the disputes before us, we see no reason to provide an express construction for the common terms select/selection.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Figure 5 of Karol depicts the packet forwarding process. Ex. 1006, 3:6–8. In step 501, a packet arrives at Karol’s CL router/switch 420. Id. 8:56–58. Step 503, then inquires as to whether the received packet is “a packet from a flow that needs CO Service.” Id. at Fig. 5, element 503 (emphasis added). Thus, we determine that Karol’s routing decisions are made for a flow of packets and not for an individual packet. As discussed above, we construed “selecting/selects, . . . within the controller on a per-packet basis” to require “selecting a network path for each packet.” See supra § II. Thus, we find that Karol does not disclose the per-packet selection required in claims 7 and 19. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that claims 7 and 19 are anticipated by Karol.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Path First) to determine routing prior to a packet being received at the gateway. PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner further contends that “[t]he OSPF routing protocol expressly excludes the possibility of making packet routing decisions on a per-packet basis.” Id. at 24. We find this to be an overly narrow view of Karol’s disclosures because Karol is not limited to OSPF. See Ex. 1006, 14:20–22 (“the description below assumes the OSPF routing protocol, the concept is readily applicable to other IP routing protocols”). We determine that Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious to modify Karol to select networks on a per-packet basis. Petitioner has proposed a modification to Karol that is “much simpler” and, therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce system complexity. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 335. Petitioner has provided arguments and evidence sufficient to show that this modification would be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See id. Thus, we find that Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it would have been obvious to modify Karol in a manner that would have taught this limitation.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,406,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,406,048 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01353 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, 8, 11–13, 15, and 18 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, however, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that Satterthwaite discloses adding STMP or any other salt of a condensed phosphate directly to the disclosed mixture of water, gypsum, and mineral wool. This deficiency undermines Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hjelmeland to determine how much STMP to add to Satterthwaite’s composition. Rather, in view of our determination regarding the disclosure of Satterthwaite, the more appropriate inquiry is whether, in view of Hjelmeland, a person of ordinary water mixture of Satterthwaite in the first place. Petitioner, however, does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP or any other condensed phosphate to Satterthwaite’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 904 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). As a result, Petitioner has failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’904 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify 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.”).” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,500,904 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01351 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–7 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“well as the testimony of Mr. Harlos and Dr. Bruce, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are unpatentable over the recited prior art references. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review with respect to any of the asserted grounds. IV. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that inter partes review is not instituted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Because the reaction of STMP and potato starch in Graux occurs before the starch is added to the gypsum and water mixture, and because the reaction converts the starch and STMP into di-starch orthophosphate and tetrasodium pyrophosphate, i.e., STMP is consumed during Graux’s reaction process, we are not persuaded that Graux expressly teaches or suggests a set gypsum that is “formed from”12 calcined gypsum, water, and sodium trimetaphosphate, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Hjelmeland to determine the amount of STMP to use in Graux. Pet. 21 (asserting that an ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to use the amount of condensed phosphate specified by Hjelmeland in the plaster composition of Graux). Although, as noted by Petitioner, Graux and Hjelmeland both disclose the use of a condensed phosphate, the references use this material in different ways. In particular, Graux uses the condensed phosphate (STMP) to crosslink a potato starch, whereas Hjelmeland discloses adding the condensed phosphate to a gypsum suspension to act as a retarding agent. Ex. 1006, 5:39–50; Ex. 1008, 3:60–4:16. Petitioner does not explain why the concentration of STMP used to retard the setting of a gypsum suspension is in any way related to the amount of STMP required to effectively crosslink a starch. Nor does Petitioner explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink its starch, would have then sought to add STMP to Graux’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s genus disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Thus, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’980 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify 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.”). Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, and Summerfield teach or suggest every limitation of independent claim 1. As dependent claims 2 and 4–7 depend directly from claim 1, we are likewise not persuaded that the combination of Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, and Summerfield teaches or suggests the subject matter of these claims.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,758,980 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that challenged claims 1–7, 10–15, 18, 22, 26, 29, 32–34, and 40 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“After reviewing the parties’ positions, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the prior art references teach or suggest including an enhancing material in the mixture of Graux in an amount such that, when the mixture is cast in the form of a ½ inch gypsum board, the board has a sag resistance of less than about 0.1 inch per two feet in length, as determined according to ASTM C473-95. Petitioner has not directed us to any sag resistance values for gypsum boards made using the ingredients disclosed in Graux and measured according to ASTM C473- 95,13 or evidence sufficient to establish that the claimed sag resistance value is an inherent property of a gypsum-containing product formed from the mixture disclosed in Graux. See Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top–U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.”) (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). With regard to Petitioner’s argument that the ’284 patent discloses prior art gypsum boards having a sag resistance of less than 0.1 inch, we note that Petitioner has not directed us to any evidence demonstrating that these products contain the enhancing materials recited in independent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 34, or 40. Further, we agree with Patent Owner that the mere fact that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the test methods set forth in ASTM C473-95 does not establish that boards tested according to 13 Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Graux discloses a mixture of calcined gypsum, water, and a claimed enhancing material––which, for the reasons discussed above, we do not––Petitioner’s argument still suffers from this deficiency. those test methods would have a particular sag resistance value, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to produce a board having a particular sag resistance value. Under the heading “Significance and Use” in the section discussing Humidified Deflection (i.e., sag resistance), ASTM C473-95 states only that “[t]his test method covers a procedure for evaluating the deflection of gypsum board.” Ex. 1009, 8 (Section 49.1) (emphasis added). We are not persuaded that such a disclosure would have taught or suggested combining the components of Graux to achieve a gypsum board having a sag resistance of less than about 0.1 inch per two foot length of said board. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Graux discloses every limitation of independent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 34, or 40, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to modify Graux in view of ASTM C473-95, or any of the other recited prior art references, to arrive at the subject matter of the challenged claims. And, as each of the challenged dependent claims depends, directly or indirectly, from one of independent claims 1, 5, and 10, we are also not persuaded that these claims would have been obvious over Graux, ASTM C473-95, Hjelmeland, Sucech, Baig, and Summerland.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner also does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP to Satterthwaite’s mixture. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Thus, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’284 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify 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.”).” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,342,284 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01352 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 6, 8, and 10 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“comprising calcined gypsum, water, an accelerator, and one or more enhancing materials selected from a group that includes STMP. Ex. 1038, 32:2–9. Petitioner does not direct us to any embodiment or teaching in Graux in which STMP is added directly to a mixture of gypsum, water, and an accelerator. Instead, Petitioner relies on the addition of a cross-linked starch in Graux as satisfying the requirement that the claimed matrix of set gypsum is prepared from a mixture comprising sodium trimetaphosphate. Pet. 33. On this record, we are not persuaded that this disclosure is sufficient to show that STMP is present in the mixture of gypsum, water, and an accelerator in Graux.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed above, however, Petitioner has not established sufficiently that Satterthwaite discloses adding STMP or any other salt of a condensed phosphate directly to the disclosed mixture of water, gypsum, and mineral wool. This deficiency undermines Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hjelmeland to determine how much STMP to add to Satterthwaite’s composition. Rather, in view of our determination regarding the disclosure of Satterthwaite, the more appropriate inquiry is whether, in view of Hjelmeland, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to add STMP to the starch-gypsum-water mixture of Satterthwaite in the first place. Petitioner, however, does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP or any other condensed phosphate to Satterthwaite’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). As a result, Petitioner has failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’914 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify 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.”).” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,142,914 - PTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01088 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 2 was unpatentable under any of the three § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“materials,” for purposes of this Decision we need only resolve whether the proper construction of the term “enhancing materials” is broad enough to encompass boric acid. Example 2 of the ’236 patent states that samples were prepared by mixing beta calcium sulfate hemihydrate, an accelerator, and water with either “0 g additive (control samples), 3 g of STMP (inventive samples), or 3 g of other additives (comparative samples).” Ex. 1030, 13:41–46. According to Table 2 of the ’236 patent, boric acid is one of the “other additives” used in making the “comparative samples.” Id. at 14:22. The ’236 patent explains that “[t]he additives employed in the comparative samples (outside the scope of the invention) are representative of other materials that have been employed to attempt to improve resistance of gypsum board to sagging under conditions of high humidity.” Id. at 14:8–13 (emphasis added). As Patent Owner points out, the ’236 patent further characterizes the board made using boric acid as one of the “noninventive comparative boards.” Id. at 14:28–32. We find this discussion of comparative examples as being outside the scope of the invention constitutes a clear indication that the “patentee disavow[ed] the full scope of a claim term . . . in the specification.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. As a result, these comparative examples, including a composition comprising gypsum, water, an accelerator, and boric acid, are “outside the reach of the claims of the patent.” SciMed, 242 F.3d at 1341; see also Prelim. Resp. 32–34 (Patent Owner referring to boric acid as a “conventional additive[]”). Therefore, when viewed in the context of the specification, the correct construction of “enhancing material” cannot include boric acid.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded that Graux discloses, expressly or inherently, the combination of calcined gypsum, water, an accelerator, and one or more of the enhancing materials recited in claim 2. Petitioner does not rely on Kerr to cure this deficiency. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combined teachings of Graux and Kerr disclose or suggest every limitation of independent claim 2. Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 2 is unpatentable over Graux and Kerr.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded that Graux discloses, expressly or inherently, the combination of calcined gypsum, water, an accelerator, and one or more of the enhancing materials recited in claim 2. Petitioner does not rely on Kerr to cure this deficiency. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combined teachings of Graux and Kerr disclose or suggest every limitation of independent claim 2. Therefore, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claim 2 is unpatentable over Graux and Kerr.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,425,236 - PTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01086 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, and 54–57 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Claims of a patent that will expire within 18 months from the Notice of Filing Date, however, are construed using “a district court-type claim construction approach,” provided a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.20 is filed within 30 days from the filing of the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Patent Owner timely filed such a motion, and Petitioner does not dispute that the ’550 patent expired shortly after the Petition was filed. Paper 6, 2; Pet. 9. Thus, to the extent necessary, we will construe the claims of the ’550 patent using “a district court-type claim construction approach.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioner provides proposed constructions for the terms “accelerator,” “set gypsum-containing product,” and “enhancing material(s).” Pet. 11–15. Patent Owner responds to Petitioner’s proposed constructions with its own proposed constructions of these terms. Prelim. Resp. 21–28. Upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting evidence, however, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See 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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“mineral wool. This deficiency undermines Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hjelmeland to determine how much STMP or condensed phosphate to add to Satterthwaite’s composition. Rather, in view of our determination regarding the disclosure of Satterthwaite, the more appropriate inquiry is whether, in view of Hjelmeland, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to add STMP or other condensed phosphate to the starch-gypsum-water mixture of Satterthwaite in the first place. Petitioner, however, does not explain adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art, having already utilized STMP to crosslink the starch, would have then sought to add STMP or any other condensed phosphate to Satterthwaite’s mixture in view of Hjelmeland’s disclosure. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). As a result, Petitioner has failed to identify a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosed elements in the art in the same fashion as recited in the claims of the ’550 patent. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify 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.”).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyOther
“pyrophosphate. Id. Consistent with Mr. Harlos’ testimony, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Bruce, testifies that the STMP of Graux is “consumed” during the crosslinking reaction.9 Ex. 2001 ¶ 110.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,632,550
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.