- Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Medivis’s rehearing request, leaving in place the decision that claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references’ public accessibility was not established.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented in turn.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“accessibility, except the references Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves. This is insufficient and tantamount to submitting no proof of public accessibility. To find public accessibility, we must determine that a “document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art[,] exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoted in Dec. 26–27. Petitioner has insufficiently explained, by a preponderance of the evidence, how Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves answer the question of whether they have been disseminated or otherwise made available to those of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we did not overlook or misapprehend any evidence of public accessibility on pages 29–30 of the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“declaration by reference, we exercised our discretion to address a portion of it in our Decision. Dec. 30–31. We did so because we noted that his testimony was “particularly deficient for [the 3D Slicer] reference.” Id. at 30. Petitioner now asserts that in doing so, we “misapprehended or overlooked the logic that application documentation” like 3D Slicer’s “must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application.” Req. 7. But Petitioner’s assertion that “application documentation must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application” is a new argument, not raised in the Petition or Reply. Even if Petitioner’s assertion were correct, it falls far short of the evidence required to prove that 3D Slicer was actually disseminated to interested members of the public. See, e.g., Weber, 92 F.4th at 1068. Thus, Petitioner’s argument fails to persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended anything.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,004,271 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Correct Transmission, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · IPR2021-00814 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Juniper’s rehearing request, leaving intact its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“because the Board was not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for purposes of institution does not mean that we overlooked or misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and importantly, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to reargue one’s case or to express disagreement with the Board’s decision.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“But Bruckman’s “trunk link” (or LAG as argued by Petitioner) is explicitly disclosed as a link to a core network, not as the links (or traces 34 on backplane 26) to subsidiary modules 24, as argued by Petitioner: “In network access systems, for example, a backplane may be used to connect a main module, having a trunk link to a core network, to a number of subsidiary modules, such as line cards, with ports serving network users. Ex. 1007, 1:25–30 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:61–2:4 (“The master module comprises a switch, which is typically used for linking the subsidiary modules via the connection lines to a network trunk.” (emphases added)); Dec. 25. Bruckman also explicitly discloses that “[a]t any given time, a number of the connection lines [between main module 22 and subsidiary modules 24, i.e., traces 34] are likely to be idle” (Ex. 1007, 2:2–4), which is contrary to a purpose of a LAG (see Ex. 1001, 2:10–16 (“The [LAG] forwarding entity usually attempts to distribute the load evenly over each physical output port of the aggregated logical link.” (emphasis added))). See Dec. 25–28. Thus, in the Decision, we found neither Petitioner nor its declarant had explained sufficiently, let alone with particularity, why the skilled artisan, but for hindsight, would have understood Bruckman to teach the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, of which the physical links are subject to the Designating Limitations, as recited, for example, in claim 1. Indeed, we were not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments in its Petition as to the Physical/Logical Link Limitations, and having reviewed the Request, remain unpersuaded. See 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.”).” slip op. at 4
Nonecites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,768,928 - Google LLC v. Uniloc 2017 LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2020-00170 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–14 and 17–20 because the petition did not adequately explain combining Hull and Barber.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“disclosure or that the Decision’s analysis of Hull is unsupported by substantial evidence. Petitioner does not point to any disclosure in Hull of descriptors that are not invariant to distortions such as those caused by translation, rotation, and scaling. See Req. Reh’g 2–8. Although Petitioner cites references in Hull to “other” or “alternative” embodiments, Petitioner does not identify, nor do we see, any descriptors other than distortion- invariant descriptors in those embodiments. See id. at 3–8. Nor does Petitioner cite any disclosure in Hull explicitly stating that distortion-invariant descriptors are “optional” or “exemplary,” as Petitioner contends. See id. at 1, 6, 8.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“adequate showing in its obviousness analysis that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hull1 and Barber2 in the manner proposed to achieve the claimed invention, which relates to a system and method for matching a target image to images stored in a database.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,253,201 - Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01074 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the follow-on petition under General Plastic.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When resolving a rehearing request, the Board reviews a decision on institution “for an abuse of discretion” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019)), which occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law,” “clearly erroneous factual findings,” or “a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Applying that standard, we deny the Rehearing Request.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for patent owner
“Accordingly, the Board found, “Standing alone, the sheer number of petitions (five), taken together with Petitioner’s unexplained and significant delay in filing the four follow-on petitions, supports an exercise of our discretionary denial powers.” Dec. 4. The Board supported that finding by an analysis of the factors that bear on the discretionary denial inquiry as set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Plastic”). Dec. 4–10 (applying the General Plastic factors).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,690,330 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00202 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution of review on all challenged claims and grounds in place.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“I. ANALYSIS When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion 1 Patent Owner also requested rehearing by the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to “clarify the date from which Fintiv Factor 4 should be analyzed, namely, the Petition’s filing date.” Req. Reh’g 1; Ex. 3001. On October 27, 2020, POP denied Patent Owner’s request for review. Paper 19. may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. For example, in the Board’s informative decision in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.—Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”), the panel considered and gave weight to Petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Here, we also considered the parties’ more recent efforts in the underlying litigation to narrow the issues at trial, which reduced concerns of duplicative efforts between the District Court and the Board and minimized the potential for conflicting decisions. See, e.g., Dec. 15–16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,212,586 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00200 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in its Fintiv analysis and decision to institute review of claims 1–5 and 8–12.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. For example, in the Board’s informative decision in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Grp.—Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (“Sand Revolution”), the panel considered and gave weight to Petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Here, we also considered the parties’ more recent efforts in the underlying litigation to narrow the issues at trial, which reduced concerns of duplicative efforts between the District Court and the Board and minimized the potential for conflicting decisions. See, e.g., Dec. 16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,084,991 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00204 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Maxell’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place because it reasonably weighed the Fintiv factors and did not abuse its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Factor 4 must be constrained to the facts as they existed when the Petition was filed. In the Board’s informative Sand Revolution decision, the panel considered and gave weight to a petitioner’s stipulation to withdraw certain prior art references from a related litigation if inter partes review was instituted. Sand Revolution at 11–12. Importantly, the stipulation in Sand Revolution arose long after the Petition was filed. Compare IPR2019-01393, Paper 1, 88 (petition with July 25, 2019, filing date), with IPR2019-01393, Ex. 1015 (stipulation to withdraw prior art dated April 13, 2020). Just as in Sand Revolution, we focused on the effects of Petitioner’s proposal to withdraw Van der Salm here: alleviating concerns of duplicative efforts between the district court and the Board and minimizing the potential for conflicting decisions. Dec. 16. This is consistent with the policy considerations underlying Factor 4 in Fintiv, namely, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv at 12. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that it was unreasonable for us to consider Petitioner’s post-filing proposal to withdraw Van der Salm.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,928,306 - Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Kove Io, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · IPR2020-00276 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show RFC1034 disclosed the claimed unique identifier-to-entity relationship for claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, 17, 23, 24, 30, and 31.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. See Office Trial Practice Guide (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)) (emphasis added). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute a requested review, our inquiry seeks to ascertain whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the challenges set forth in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). That inquiry is not limited to disputes presented in a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Indeed, filing of a Patent Owner Preliminary Response is optional and does not impact our statutory obligation to review the Petition for a reasonable likelihood of success. 35 U.S.C. § 313; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“upon does not remedy the deficiencies we identified in the Petition. As we stated, Dr. Weissman’s testimony “does not resolve the failure of Petitioner to account for the required relationship between a host computer (i.e., entity) and a domain name (i.e., identifier).” Dec. on Inst. 20–21 (citing Pet. 19–20, 22–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75, 88) (emphasis added). Thus, Petitioner fails to show that we misapprehended or overlooked arguments or evidence regarding the claimed “entity” because Petitioner did not clearly explain how a “host” as disclosed in RFC1034 meets the claimed entity and how a domain name (i.e., the “identifier”) identifies a single host. A rehearing request is not an opportunity to argue what should have been addressed in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 7,233,978 - Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 3, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ClearOne’s rehearing request, declining to reconsider the patentability of proposed substitute claims 57–67 based on newly raised Levit and Gulbrandsen.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“B. Standard for Reconsideration The party challenging a Board decision has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“New evidence is not permitted in a request for rehearing without a showing of good cause. See Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 (PTAB January 8, 2019) (precedential). In this case, Petitioner appears to attempt to show good cause, though not expressly stating so, through the allegation that Patent Owner violated its duty of disclosure. Req. Reh’g 1–2. In the Order (Paper 95), the Board found Petitioner’s allegation insufficient, and did not permit briefing on a motion for sanctions for violating the duty of disclosure. Because Petitioner presents no other basis for good cause, the Board declines to admit the new evidence of Levit and Gulbrandsen into this proceeding.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 9,565,493 - Vanguard Products Group, Inc., D/B/A Vanguard Protex Global v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · May 26, 2020 · IPR2019-01209 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because the Petition lacked adequate evidence and reasoning to support the proposed obviousness combination.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). “An abuse of discretion is found if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As the Petition makes clear, the linchpin of Petitioner’s argument for modifying Brenner is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide of Brenner’s device. See Pet. 21 (“Thus, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the security device of Brenner is prone to reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide.”); id. at 34 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that . . . the security device will likely suffer from reliability issues associated with signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. at 35 (“[T]he optical transceivers of the sensor unit and the base unit may not be able to reliably communicate with one another due to optical signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. 6 The Petition and our Decision refer to this book by its title (“Communications Standard Dictionary”), but Petitioner now refers to it by the last name of its author (“Weik”). Compare Pet. 6, 19, with Req. Reh’g 2. For convenience and consistency with the Request for Rehearing, we refer to the book herein as “Weik.” Notably, Petitioner did not submit Weik as a prior art printed publication to be considered as part of an unpatentability ground, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (2018). See Pet. 5. Rather, the Petition cites Weik as support for its proposed claim construction and as support for an alleged “well-known fact” that an optical waveguide subjected to bending or winding is prone to signal loss. Id. at 6, 19. skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 17–18 (citing Pet. 21, 35). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As the Petition makes clear, the linchpin of Petitioner’s argument for modifying Brenner is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide of Brenner’s device. See Pet. 21 (“Thus, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the security device of Brenner is prone to reliability issues due to signal loss in the optical waveguide.”); id. at 34 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that . . . the security device will likely suffer from reliability issues associated with signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. at 35 (“[T]he optical transceivers of the sensor unit and the base unit may not be able to reliably communicate with one another due to optical signal loss within the optical waveguide.”); id. 6 The Petition and our Decision refer to this book by its title (“Communications Standard Dictionary”), but Petitioner now refers to it by the last name of its author (“Weik”). Compare Pet. 6, 19, with Req. Reh’g 2. For convenience and consistency with the Request for Rehearing, we refer to the book herein as “Weik.” Notably, Petitioner did not submit Weik as a prior art printed publication to be considered as part of an unpatentability ground, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (2018). See Pet. 5. Rather, the Petition cites Weik as support for its proposed claim construction and as support for an alleged “well-known fact” that an optical waveguide subjected to bending or winding is prone to signal loss. Id. at 6, 19. skill in the art] to improve the reliability of the security device of Brenner . . . .”); see also Dec. 14–15, 17–18 (citing Pet. 21, 35). Because we determined in our Decision that Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized reliability issues in Brenner’s device, we concluded Petitioner did not provide adequate reasoning with rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Brenner as proposed. Dec. 16– 18.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that we overlooked evidence from Weik relied on in the Petition. Our Decision considered Weik’s description of a “microbend loss” that was quoted in the Petition: “the optical power loss caused by a microbend, i.e., a small bend, kink, or abrupt discontinuity in the direction of the optical axis of fibers, in the core-cladding interface surface, or both, usually caused by cabling, wrapping the fiber around drums and (citing Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002, 576)). But Petitioner does not identify, nor do we see, any assertion in the Petition that Weik shows a microbend loss can cause a “total failure” of an optical signal to reach its destination. See Req. Reh’g 9; Pet. 19–20, 34–35. Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing also does not identify where the Petition addressed Weik’s statement that microbends can cause radiative loss. See Pet. 19–20, 34–35. Because these arguments were not presented in the first instance in the Petition, we could not have overlooked them in our Decision.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,062,253
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.