• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18

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

    “under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00664 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations failed to teach or suggest the claimed selectable widget functionality and lacked a coherent rationale to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that: A POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] of the ’352 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to human-computer interaction, such as Human Factors, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience working with touchscreen user interfaces. More education could substitute for less work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34).” slip op. at 7

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

    “In our Decision to Institute, we construed “input that is directed to a portion of” a user interface. Paper 8, at 9; see also Pet. 24–25. Because this interpretation is not necessary for our final determination, we do not repeat it here.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3. Petitioner’s reliance of the testimony of Dr. Rosenberg (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 91) is unpersuasive because Dr. Rosenberg merely restates the Petitioner’s assertions without reliance on persuasive evidence of record. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, at 5 (Feb 10, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.) (“[T]he Board was correct in giving little weight to Petitioner’s expert because the expert declaration merely offered conclusory assertions without underlying factual support and repeated, verbatim, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments.”). When addressing Chae’s three graphics in Figure 6(b) during cross-examination, Dr. Rosenberg testifies that “[t]hey’re not a numbered element, so they’re not spoken about specifically those three ones”). Ex. 2005, 56:9–14, 54:21–22 (“Chae doesn’t talk about the weather icon”). Further, the final record does not support Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “part of the well-known functionality of widgets was that selecting a widget would cause ‘display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. None of the references relied upon by Petitioner discloses this alleged “well-known functionality of widgets,” nor does the evidence of record support any industry standard usage of the term widget in the appropriate timeframe. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 46–48. Petitioner has also not persuasively shown that selections of Chae’s SIM card icons result in the display of an application as claimed. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154, Fig. 22; see also Tr. 43:14–17 (“the claimed interface object causes display of the corresponding application, but selection of this paragraph 152, Figure 22 widget causes selection of something different, a sim environment.”). We find Patent Owner’s position more persuasive, when Chae uses the word widget, it is not using that word to refer to something that launches into an application, but instead Chae’s widgets show use-state information related to a SIM environment. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154; Tr. 33:3–12. Specifically, Chae discloses “widgets that show use-state information of the first and second SIMs (SIM1 and SIM2),” and “when a user selects one of [the] widgets,” it “unlocks the SIM corresponding to the dragged widget.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 153, Fig. 3 (unlocking SIM displays home screen customized to unlocked SIM). Chae does not support that these widgets relate to the graphic items in its Figure 6(b), nor does Chae explain how its widgets could be understood as the claimed “user interface objects” of the widget screen user interface. As explained persuasively by Dr. Cockburn, “the only widgets that are described in Chae are widgets relating to the use state of the multiple SIM cards,” and “[t]hese widgets described in Chae do not correspond to applications and thus do not cause display of applications when the widgets are selected.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 152).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Based on the final record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that the combination of prior art teaches the required widget limitation of “a respective user interface object . . . when selected, causes display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object” as recited in claim 1. Petitioner relies on Chae’s Figure 6(b), which is reproduced below: Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,106,352 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,106,352
• Bluebird Bio, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00074 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because the cited May references did not sufficiently disclose or guide a skilled artisan to the claimed LCR fragments.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’061 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner states that “that no term of the ’061 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See PO Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “represents the inventors’ own work, and thus the May Thesis is not prior art to the ’061 patent. PO Resp. 14–15. The May Thesis is authored by Chad May, who is a listed inventor of the ’061 patent. Id.; Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1001, code (75). Thus, the May Thesis represents the work of one of the ’061 inventors and is therefore ineligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on the July 1, 2002 priority date. See, e.g., In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454–455 (CCPA 1982) (a prior publication by inventors or a subset of the inventors does not qualify as prior art under 102(a)). With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we find that the May Thesis is ineligible as prior art, even assuming that the Challenged Claims are not entitled to receive benefit of an earlier filing date. Petitioner provides evidence that the May Thesis was publicly available as of November 26, 2001. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 1–26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute that evidence. Based on the undisputed November 26, 2001 public availability date, the May Thesis represents a disclosure less than one year before the asserted effective filing date, i.e., July 1, 2002. Based on that timing and because the disclosure was made by the inventor, the May Thesis is not available as prior art to the Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).” slip op. at 11

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

    “summarized above, we determine that the May Article fails to disclose the restriction sites surrounding the BstXI and SnaBI HS2-, BamHI and HindIII HS3-, or BamHI and BanII HS4-spanning nucleotide fragments, as required by the challenged claims. According to Petitioner, that limitation is inherently disclosed by the May Article’s description of the lengths of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments in the TNS9 vector and its depiction of those fragments on a map of the LCR. Pet. 28. To support its inherency argument, Petitioner relies on knowledge in the art, i.e., the availability of the entire map of the LCR region, and the availability of restriction enzymes, including BstX1, SnaBI, BamHI, HindIII, and BanII. Id. at 39–40 (citing Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381–83). Based on that combined information, Petitioner contends that a POSA would “have been able to map all of the possible restriction sites in the regions flanking the cores of HS2, HS3, and HS4.” Id. Petitioner asserts further that “[g]iven the May Article’s disclosure regarding the size and location of TNS9’s HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments, a POSA would have placed these fragments onto the restrictionsite map of the LCR” that was available at the time, and would have identified only six possible combinations of restriction enzyme fragments, including the one recited in claim 1. Id. Upon closer inspection, however, we appreciate from the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bungert, that the process involved in arriving at those six possible combinations is predicated on numerous assumptions guiding a number of exacting steps to be performed in order to achieve the the claimed LCR fragment would have involved the steps of (a) placing fragments that are the disclosed size of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments from the TNS9 vector in the May Article onto the known restriction-site map of the LCR; (b) comparing those fragments to the “‘drawn to scale’ map” in the May Article; and then (c) identifying various fragments and determining which ones are consistent with the May Article’s description and match up with the fragments on the May Article’s drawn to scale map. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–156. To identify the fragments consistent with the May Article’s description, it was necessary for Dr. Bungert to use certain assumptions that exclude unfavorable enzymes, such as using a range of ± 20 bp in order to identify fragments with lengths that are within 20 bp of the fragments reported in the May Article. Id. In view of the number of assumptions and steps required to get from what is disclosed in the May Article to arrive at the alleged “six possible LCRs (i.e., combination of HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments based on the TNS9 LCR disclosed in the May Article)—including the LCR recited in claim 1,” Ex. 1002 ¶ 156, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated that fragments having the restriction sites recited in claim 1 would have been “at once envisaged” by a skilled artisan as argued by Petitioner. Pet. 39–40.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,058,061 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,058,061
• Bluebird Bio, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00070 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10, 19, and 22 were not shown unpatentable because the May Thesis was not prior art and the May Article and May Abstract did not establish the claimed LCR fragments.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’179 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “the ’179 patent. Id.; Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1001, code (75). Thus, the May Thesis represents the work of one of the ’179 inventors and is therefore ineligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) for challenged claims 1, 19, and 22. See, e.g., In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454–455 (CCPA 1982) (a prior publication by inventors or a subset of the inventors does not qualify as prior art under 102(a)). With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we find that the May Thesis is ineligible as prior art, even assuming that claims 1, 19, and 22 are not entitled to receive benefit of an earlier filing date. Petitioner provides evidence that the May Thesis was publicly available as of November 26, 2001. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 1–26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute that evidence. Based on the undisputed November 26, 2001 public availability date, the May Thesis represents a disclosure less than one year before the asserted effective filing date, i.e., the July 1, 2002, for claims 1, 19, and 22 challenged with this reference. Based on that timing and because the disclosure was made by the inventor, the May Thesis is not available as prior art to challenged claims 1, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Petitioner has not established that the May Thesis is prior art to claims” slip op. at 11

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

    “summarized above, we determine that the May Article fails to disclose the restriction sites surrounding the BstXI and SnaBI HS2-, BamHI and HindIII HS3-, or BamHI and BanII HS4-spanning nucleotide fragments, as required by the challenged claims. According to Petitioner, that limitation is inherently disclosed by the May Article’s description of the lengths of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments in the TNS9 vector and its depiction of those fragments on a map of the LCR. Pet. 28. To support its inherency argument, Petitioner relies on knowledge in the art, i.e., the availability of the entire map of the LCR region, and the availability of restriction enzymes, including BstX1, SnaBI, BamHI, HindIII, and BanII. Id. at 30–31 (citing Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381–83). Based on that combined information, Petitioner contends that a POSA would “have been able to map all of the possible restriction sites in the regions flanking the cores of HS2, HS3, and HS4.” Id. Petitioner asserts further that “[g]iven the May Article’s disclosure regarding the size and location of [TNS9’s] HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments, a POSA would have placed these fragments onto the restrictionsite map of the LCR” that was available at the time, and would have identified only six possible combinations of restriction enzyme fragments, including the one recited in claim 1. Id. Upon closer inspection, however, we appreciate from the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bungert, that the process involved in arriving at those six possible combinations is predicated on numerous assumptions guiding a number of exacting steps to be performed in order to achieve the claimed LCR fragment. According to Dr. Bungert, the process for making the claimed LCR fragment would have involved the steps of (a) placing fragments that are the disclosed size of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments from the TNS9 vector in the May Article onto the known restriction-site map of the LCR; (b) comparing those fragments to the “‘drawn to scale’ map” in the May Article; and then (c) identifying various fragments and determining which ones are consistent with the May Article’s description and match up with the fragments on the May Article’s drawn to scale map. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117. To identify the fragments consistent with the May Article’s description, it was necessary for Dr. Bungert to use certain assumptions that exclude unfavorable enzymes such as using a range of ± 20 bp in order to identify fragments with lengths that are within 20 bp of the fragments reported in the May Article. Id. In view of the number of assumptions and steps required to get from what is disclosed in the May Article to arrive at the alleged “six possible LCRs (i.e., combination of HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments based on the TNS9 LCR disclosed in the May Article)—including the LCR recited in claim 1,” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated that fragments having the restriction sites recited in claim 1 would have been “at once envisage[d]” by a skilled artisan as argued by Petitioner. Pet. 30–31.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,541,179 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,541,179
• BTC Corporation v. TG Biotech Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00998 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to strike Exhibit 1038 was granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that we should disregard Dr. Naumovski’s testimony because she may have taken a leave of absence from work for a couple of years. The record supports that Dr. Naumovski not only meets the requirements of the person of ordinary skill in the art, but also appears to have relevant knowledge with respect to Gynostemma pentaphylum (“GP”) saponins. See Ex. 2015 (Appendix A). related field, and at least two years of experience using techniques for extraction and characterization of plant-based materials.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 74). Because there are more than 400 species of plants that contain saponins, Patent Owner disagrees that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the structure and utility of saponins. Id. The level of skill in the art is a reference point for gauging what would have been obvious based on the reference disclosures. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. In other words, the lens of the level of ordinary skill in the art does not change a prior art’s disclosure, though it may change one’s understanding of what is disclosed. Patent Owner, however, does not explain how its definition provides a reference point that would meaningfully alter the Petition’s assertions of obviousness. For purposes of this decision, we analyze the asserted prior art with respect to the level of skill set forth by Petitioner, but there would be no difference in the outcome of this Decision if we were to apply the level of skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. C.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “during the full trial, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that applying the methods of Kim 460 to the G. pentaphyllum starting material of Razmovski necessarily results in the damulin levels as claimed. We agree with Dr. Naumovski’s explanation that the use of an impure damulin B standard containing a double peak renders the results as shown in Exhibit 1013 unreliable. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 141–143, 162–173; see Ex. 2007. Dr. Naumovski further explains that the use of an impure standard would require the application of a correction factor, but this correction factor would need to be reassessed as the purity of the standard decreases over time. See Ex. 2015 ¶ 166. As Dr. Naumovski explains that applying a correction factor to the linear regression would result in a shallower slope. Ex. 2015 ¶ 165 (citing 2006, 71:12–73:5; 99:2–9). “Reducing the calibration curve slope increases the amount of damulin B calculated from the experimental extracts.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 165. However, in the Experimental Report-1 the same correction factor for the damulin B standard was used to” slip op. at 41

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner requests construction of the terms “an effective amount for improving or treating the metabolic syndrome,” which is found in claims 11–13, as meaning “an amount that produces any measurable amount of improvement in the metabolic syndrome” (Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 91)) and “[a] pharmaceutical composition for improving and treating a metabolic syndrome, comprising at least one of at least 0.7% damulin A and at least 0.5% damulin B . . . and a pharmacologically acceptable carrier or excipient,” which is found in claim 8, as meaning “a pharmaceutical composition that includes an extract with 0.7% and 0.5% of damulin A and damulin B[, respectively,] along with a carrier or excipient” (id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002, 64–65, 251–52, 280; Ex. 1001, 12:15–67, Table 2)). Patent Owner argues that “constructions are not necessary.” PO Resp. 11–12. We agree with Patent Owner and determine that it is not necessary for purposes of this Decision to construe any claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms” slip op. at 15

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

    “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Droge, 695 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed.Cir.1988)); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the expectation of success issue involves a showing of “a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed”) (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner relies on Kim 460 to show that heating ginseng, which contains the ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, results in a teaches that ginseng with the higher Rg3 and Rg5 content is 50-fold more potent in their vasodilation studies than the non-treated samples. Razmovski teaches that G. pentaphyllum contains over 100 saponins and eight of those saponins are the same as protoparaxadiol-type ginsenosides Rb1, Rc, Rb3, Rd, F2, Rg3, malonyl-Rb1, and malonyl-Rd that are found in P. ginseng. Ex. 1007, 4. Knowing that G. pentaphyllum also contains ginsenosides Rb1, Rb2, Rc, Rd, Rg3, and Rg5, we find Petitioner’s conclusion that heating a G. pentaphyllum extract that contains these ginsenosides would similarly increase the ginsenoside levels of Rg3 and Rg5 is a reasonable inference from the cited references. Based on the teachings in Kim 460, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been reasonable to expect that the same source material, although derived from a different plant, would behave similarly to heat treatment. See Pet. 24. Because G. pentaphyllum is a less expensive starting material, we also agree with Petitioner that there is sufficient motivation to substitute G. pentaphyllum for ginseng in the methods of Kim 460. slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,357,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,357,786
• Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.12 PO Resp. 16. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are materially similar. 12 Petitioner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Reply. definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Also, the Petition merely states that “Ono supports instances where the user stops the step-counting mode operation using switch S2 after the processor detects that” the target distance or the target number of steps has been reached and notifies the user by generating an alarm sound. Pet. 53 (emphasis added). In this case, supporting the notion of the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm is not the same as teaching or suggesting the notion to one of ordinary skill in the art. The possibility that a user could stop the step-counting operation in response the alarm is insufficient to render claims 1 and 20 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Petitioner’s reliance on the Hewlett-Packard and Unwired Planet cases (Pet. 56) is unavailing, as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present proceeding. Namely, both of those cases involved prior art references that disclosed operations that satisfied a claimed feature some, but not all, of the time. Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d at 1326; Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1002. Here, Ono does not disclose the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm even some of the time. In view of the above, we determine, based on the full record, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings does not disclose limitations [1f] or [20f]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We have determined incorporated Grounds 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4, as well as Ground 5A, deficient for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that any of these combinations somehow adds something to supplement or strengthen the patentability analysis of the incorporated grounds, we note that neither the Petition nor Dr. Kenny provides sufficient particularity to support such a position. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 5B); (2) claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 31, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 49, and 61–65 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Conlan (Ground 6A); (3) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, and Hickman (Ground 6B); (4) claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Kaufman (Ground 7); (5) claims 1–5, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45–47, 49, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, and Kaufman (Ground 8A); and (6) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 8B).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576
• Abs Global, Inc. / Genus, PLC v. Cytonome/St, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2022 · IPR2021-00088 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable because Simonnet disclosed split sample streams, and Petitioner did not adequately show a reason to modify it to form a single stream.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “focused split sample typically would not allow two cells to arrive at the inspection region at once, because there is not enough space for two 10-μm cells to travel side by side.” See Ex. 1054 ¶ 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 5662) (emphasis added). The qualifier “typically” for two cells not arriving at the same time does not indicate that there would be no split stream. And Dr. Issadore seems to concede there could be a split sample. Id. Further, Dr. Issadore does not state which dimensions of which of Simonnet’s channels that he is using as a reference.27 We determine that Dr. Issadore provides insufficient evidence and reasoning for an understanding that there would be a single stream if mammalian cells were used, in addition to making a statement that stops short of that conclusion. Although not argued by Petitioner nor discussed by Dr. Issadore, Simonnet does state: “we expect the HTD to be compatible with cells up to ~15 µm in size.” Ex. 1005, 5662. Simonnet also states: “We expect that with the improvements in optics and detection electronics, a cytometry system based on the HTD would match the throughput, sensitivity, and accuracy of commercial flow cytometers and would be an adequate tool for assaying fluorescently marked live cells.” Id. These statements can be fairly read as a statement of reasonable expectation of success of using mammalian cells in the device. However, Simonnet is silent as to whether the mammalian cells would be in a single stream, and if anything, Simonnet appears to be inviting further experimentation. Accordingly, Petitioner has not provided adequate reasoning to modify Simonnet to form a single sample stream.” slip op. at 52

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we set forth our preliminary determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in the field of bioengineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, or analytical chemistry, or a related field and at least three years of experience in designing or developing microfluidic systems. See Dec. 10–11. Patent Owner does not dispute this definition. See PO Resp. 4. 6 The parties do not present or address objective evidence of non-obviousness in this proceeding. After considering all evidence and arguments anew, we determine that it is proper to maintain our definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “sheath flow does not mean that “focusing” requires sheath flow. In other words, the Specification does not contain a definition of “focusing” that defines “focusing” as requiring “sheath flow.” As discussed above, the Specification does state “focusing (e.g., constricting).” See also Tr. 41:22– 42:8 (discussing the Specification of the ’439 patent). Whether or not this disclosure rises to the level of a definition, it indicates that focusing is understood to be constricting and does not mention “sheath flow.” Although sheath flow may, in certain cases, be a natural result of having multiple fluid focusing features (see Ex. 1001, 14:6), the claim itself does not require that focusing include sheath flow.11 11 In terms of resolving the dispute between the parties, the real question appears to be whether the sample stream that exits the focusing region must be a single sample stream or whether it may encompass split sample streams, a question that we address in the next subsection. Patent Owner’s ultimate argument appears to be that “focusing” requires a single sample stream because “focusing” requires sheath flow and sheath flow requires a single sample stream. However, we agree with Petitioner that persons of ordinary skill could still refer to split streams as having “sheath flow” (see Ex. 1054 ¶ 11; Ex. 1043, 2215, Fig. 10 and caption (“separated two-sample 3D sheath flow”); Ex. 1044, 2 (“multiple core-sheath flow”), and therefore, even if we agreed with Patent Owner that focusing requires sheath flow, that would not clarify whether “focusing” precludes split sample streams. In any event, we conclude that focusing does not require sheath flow. We recognize that there are examples in the Specification where there is sheath flow. E.g., Ex. 1001, 5:30–32 (“Certain embodiments described herein relate [to] systems and methods for producing a sheath flow . . .”), 10:35–37 (“The illustrated core stream forming geometry 400 provides improved sheath flow capabilities and thus improved sample focusing capabilities.”). However, case law generally counsels against importing limitations from the Specification into the claims. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (“To avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims, it is important to keep in mind that the purposes of the specification are to teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide a best mode for doing so.”).12 We, therefore, do not import “sheath flow” into the definition of focusing.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Therefore, we construe “the sample stream” in the claim phrase “configured to focus the sample stream” to refer to a singular stream. c) Conclusion as to “focusing” and “configured to focus the sample stream” We maintain our construction of “focusing” as “pinching, confining, squeezing, or constricting” and decline to import additional requirements such as sheath flow into the term “focusing.” Nevertheless, we construe “the sample stream” in the claim phrase “configured to focus the sample stream” to refer to a singular stream.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,583,439 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,583,439
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01524 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–16 not unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove obviousness over the asserted Richardson-based grounds, including the required distinct, nonzero duty cycles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Based on the final record, we find Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “duty cycle” persuasive. The evidence cited supports “duty cycle” to mean “the ratio of operating time (or on time) of a light source to the total time period during which the light source is intermittently operated, expressed as a percentage.” See Ex. 2002 ¶ 36 (relying on an electronics dictionary and testifying as to how the ’776 patent uses “duty cycle” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning to require a ratio of operating time to total elapsed time). We are persuaded by the Specification of the ’776 patent describing the “duty cycle” as the ratio of the operating time (or on time) of the red and infrared LEDs to the total time period during which the LEDs are intermittently operated, expressed as a percentage. See Ex. 1001, 2:43–44; Ex. 2004, 225; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 37, 39. The duty cycle is described as consistently being “in the range of about 3.125% to about 25%.” Ex. 1001, 2:43–44, Figs. 5, 8. The weight of the evidence, including the claim language and Specification, convinces us that neither the first nor the second duty cycles can be 0%. The claims require the first and second control protocol light sources to generate light so that the patient monitor can calculate a pulse rate based on the light. See Ex. 1001, 11:45–12:21 (“when operating according to the first control protocol, calculating . . . measurement values of the pulse rate, . . . responsive to light from the first control protocol light source” and “calculating the measurement values of the pulse rate, . . . responsive to light from the second control protocol light source”); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 41, 42. The first and second duty cycles cannot be 0% because the light sources of the first and second control protocol light source would not generate light to enable pulse rate calculation as required by the claims. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 42 (“[I]f the first control protocol light source had a duty cycle of 0%, the light source would be inactive and would not generate light. If the light source did not generate light the monitor could not calculate the ‘measurement” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner identifies the appropriate level of skill in the art as that possessed by a person having “a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32 (“someone with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies”)). “Alternatively, the person could have also had a 1 Neither party has introduced objective evidence of non-obviousness. See Tr. 23:25–24:3. Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline.” Id. Patent Owner makes several observations regarding Petitioner’s identified level of skill in the art but, “for this proceeding, [Patent Owner] applies the asserted level of skill identified in the Petition.” PO Resp. 11– 12. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment as set forth above, which appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and prior art.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “generated by the source is adjusted to optimize the signal to noise ratio and to minimize power consumption.” Ex. 1006, 11:54–57; Pet. 46, 49, 50. Turcott conveys that this “can be done by adjusting the drive current, the frequency of the pulse train, the pulse duration, or the duty cycle of the pulse train.” Ex. 1006, 11:57–59. Dr. Anthony contends that Turcott describes shifting the frequency of the pulse train and adjusting the duty cycle from one duty cycle to another, and infers that these things could be done during normal operation of the device to reduce power consumption. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81, 82, 87. We do not agree that Turcott teaches shifting the frequency of the pulse train or adjusting the duty cycle during normal operation of the device as alleged by Petitioner. We have considered Dr. Anthony’s testimony as to these points, but we determine that the scope of Turcott’s teachings are better explained by Dr. Madisetti. We find more persuasive Dr. Madisetti’s testimony and reasoning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Turcott’s adjustments would happen during device design or setup, and not during operation of the device. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 101–105. This is so because Turcott discloses operating at a single, low duty cycle that minimizes power consumption. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1006, 11:51–52 (“To conserve energy, the source is preferably driven with a low duty cycle pulse train.”). We also find persuasive Dr. Madisetti’s cross-examination testimony that the use of the terminology “optical power generated by the source is adjusted” in Turcott, “refers and describes to a POSA that it’s adjusted, past tense, at design time or manufacturing or setup,” and that “Turcott refers to this adjusted in past tense through the term ‘adjusting’ referring to that time at manufacturing or setup.” Ex. 1038, 22:16–24:15.” slip op. at 43

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

    “As we determined above, the claimed first and second duty cycles cannot be 0%. This determination precludes Petitioner’s first mapping of Richardson from reading on claims 1 and 11. Petitioner identifies the first mapping of Richardson as the transition of Richardson’s oximeter from State 2 to State 1. Pet. 10 (“For this first mapping of Richardson . . . the claim elements . . . are mapped to disclosure in Richardson describing the oximeter transitioning from State 2 (as the first control protocol) to State 1 (as the second control protocol).”). Petitioner argues that State 2 (blue below) is the “first control protocol” and State 1 (orange below) is the “second control protocol” required by claims 1 and 11. Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 2 of Richardson (Ex. 1004) describes implementing the noise reduction methods in a pulse oximeter having three states, including State 1 (highlighted in orange) and State 2 (highlighted in blue). PO Resp. 33. Richardson’s pulse oximeter transitions from State 1 to State 2 “[e]very 30 seconds,” and “[t]he purpose of State 2 is to detect new noise sources that may have appeared since the last State 0 measurements.” Ex. 1004, 9:39–42. In State 2, the oximeter reassesses the noise “by turning off one LED; typically the red LED,” for about 1.4 seconds. Id. at 6:2–3, 9:52–53. When the 1.4 seconds (i.e., idle time) expires, the oximeter automatically returns to State 1 where it uses the newly estimated noise values. Id. at 9:63–65; see also id. at 9:66–10:5 (discussing idle time). When operating in State 1, the oximeter has both LEDs turned on. Id. at 5:55–67. Petitioner argues that the red LED “has a duty cycle of 0%” in State 2 and a duty cycle of “at least 25%” in State 1. Pet. 16. Petitioner admits that in State 2 “the red light source is turned off.” Id. As we determined in the claim construction analysis, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “first duty cycle” cannot be 0% based on the claims and Specification. Thus, under the proper construction of “first duty cycle,” turning off the red LED in State 2 (Petitioner’s “first control protocol”) is not operating according to a “first duty cycle” as required by claims 1 and 11. Ex. 2002 ¶ 66.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,433,776 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,433,776
• Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01523 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Apple did not prove claims 1–7, 9–18, and 20–24 unpatentable; the asserted obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed power reduction or the required light detector-derived processing characteristics.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our view, Patent Owner has the better explanation for what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the ’703 patent as to what constitutes the “processing characteristics” that factor into the patient monitoring described by the claims. In that respect, we agree with Patent Owner’s above-noted assessments of the requirements of claims 4 and 8. Patent Owner persuasively explains that claim 4 does not emerge as meaningless based on Patent Owner’s construction of “processing characteristics” but instead claim 4 further refines the understanding of the type of processing characteristics that are received from the light detectors, i.e., signal characteristics rather than physiological measurements. We also share Patent Owner’s view that the understanding of claim 8 taken in the context of the Specification (e.g., Fig. 4), establishes that the estimate of power consumption is determined based on signals from light detector 490. We agree that Petitioner’s views as to how claims 4 and 8 inform the meaning of “processing characteristics” lack support and fall short. We conclude that it is inconsistent with the ’703 patent to tease out the sweeping premise advanced by Petitioner that simply any information that is processed, regardless of its source, can constitute the “processing characteristics” that are employed as a part of all of the challenged claims to monitor a patient based on light signals. Rather, we rely on the written description of the ’703 patent as a useful guide in informing the meaning of “processing characteristics,” and conclude that the proper understanding of the term is that such characteristics are derived from signals from light detectors. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“It is therefore entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”). Accordingly, we conclude that, in the context of the ’703 patent, “processing characteristics” are determined from a signal received from one or more detectors configured to detect light.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “2. Other Claim Terms Upon consideration of the entirety of the arguments and evidence presented, we conclude no further explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of the level of ordinary skill. Patent Owner, however, does level a measure of criticism of Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art as being inconsistent with Petitioner’s own declarant, Dr. Anthony, in not accounting for experience in “non-invasive optical biosensors.” PO Resp. 16–17. Nevertheless, Patent Owner expresses that it “applies the asserted level of skill identified in the Petition.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). We determine that the Petitioner’s expressed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’703 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt it in this Decision.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s view that suspending Diab’s motion artifact suppression module necessarily will result in reduced power consumption. Although Amano does describe that its particular system enjoys reduced power consumption when its body movement component eliminating section 30 is suspended (Ex. 1004, 21:65–22:6), Patent Owner presents plausible reasoning and evidence that such power reduction may not occur in Diab’s differently structured and configured system. As between the conflicting testimony of Dr. Anthony and Dr. Madisetti on this matter, we find more credible the testimony of Dr. Madisetti in explaining why the same power consumption reduction attributed in Amano may not occur in Diab’s differently structured system. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 76–77, 87–90. Yet, the premise of supposed power reduction is the foundational reason that Petitioner advances in combining the teachings of Amano with Diab. We conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion on this issue. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,457,703 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,457,703
• SHDS, Inc. / Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Truinject Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00937 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–16, and 20–26 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not account for required simulated therapeutic-agent delivery and real-time digital-plunger limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary. 3. Remaining Claim Terms We discern that no other term needs an express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Thus, Patent Owner proposes a construction of the above-noted phrase as “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus.” Petitioner acknowledges that “the parties agreed to the construction of this term in the Delaware Action. No further construction of the term is required.” Pet. Reply 5. In light of the parties’ mutually acknowledged agreement of the meaning of the noted-term, and given that we do not see reason on the record before us to deviate from that meaning, we apply the same meaning of “a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from the digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus” to the noted claim phrase and consider no further construction to be necessary.” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “on Lampotang’s paragraph 89, Petitioner attempts to expand its proposed ground, and uses the Petitioner Reply to do so. To that end, Petitioner turns to specific disclosure of Samosky at paragraph 67 as providing an evidentiary basis to conclude that depiction of a simulated delivery of a therapeutic agent “would have been obvious.” Pet. Reply 14. A reply provides an opportunity for a party to respond to arguments made, for instance, in a patent owner response. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A reply, however, is not an appropriate vehicle to reconfigure a proposed ground based on new or additional evidence that is not reasonably tied to a ground advanced in the Petition, which is what Petitioner seeks to do here. The Petition does not set forth an adequate basis to conclude that Petitioner relied on Samosky’s teachings to account for features of claim 1 of the ’232 patent. As Patent Owner points out (PO Sur-reply 13–14), it is impermissible and untimely for Petitioner to now attempt to do so as a part of the Reply. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n [inter partes review] petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”) (citing Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Lampotang’s disclosure with reference to Figure 2 focuses on the CVL technique, which involves withdrawing blood from a blood vessel rather than injecting medication into the patient’s body. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 89-90. The CVL technique is not concerned with visualizing a simulated flow of therapeutic agent delivered from a digital model of the syringe to the digital model of the training apparatus. Ex. 2005 ¶ 102; see PO Resp. 41. We credit Dr. Pugh’s testimony on this matter, as we find it consistent with Lampotang’s disclosure as to the content of its Figure 2 and Lampotang’s description of the CVL technique. See, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 78, 89–90.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,290,232 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,290,232

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.