• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2016-01237 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–44 would have been obvious over Baker, Xu, and Hatke.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review of U.S. Patent No. 7,212,850 B2 (“the ’850 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–44 of the ’850 patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Braemar Manufacturing, LLC (Patent Owner) filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to any challenged claim of the ’850 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Further, a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known, independently, in the prior art. Id. at 418. Additionally, we determine Petitioner—by, inter alia, ambiguously referring to disclosures in multiple references individually and in combination—has failed to explain adequately how it is proposing to combine or modify the references’ teachings to arrive at the claimed subject matter of the forty-four challenged claims. See, e.g., Pet. 29 (“Baker or Xu alone, as well as in combination, disclose the broader claim feature and the narrower feature in claims 35 and 41.”) For these reasons, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated there is a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 11

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

    “display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’850 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 43–44. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’850 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’850 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’850 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’850 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’850 patent. Id. at 45–46. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 46; see also id. at 49 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’850 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 13

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

    “display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’850 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 43–44. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’850 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 31 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’850 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’850 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’850 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’850 patent. Id. at 45–46. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 46; see also id. at 49 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’850 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 13

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,212,850
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2016 · IPR2016-01236 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims 1–28 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the claims were obvious over Baker, Xu, and Hatke.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “limitation would have been obvious in view of the combination of Baker, Xu, and Hatke.”); id. at 26 (“Baker or Xu alone, as well as in combination, disclose the first claim limitation of independent claim 1 and 12.”). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Further, a patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known, independently, in the prior art. Id. at 418. Petitioner’s discussion of the “subset” feature is an example of a flawed analysis focused on individual elements rather than an ordered whole. Petitioner’s rationale for the combining of Baker and Xu is that Xu “provid[es] an efficient and accurate AF detection algorithm” (Pet. 24) and “because [Xu’s algorithm] has the desirable characteristics of rapidly and accurately detecting AF events with robust anti-noise performance and requires a short amount of computing time” (id. at 31). Although it is not clear as to how Petitioner proposes to modify Baker by Xu, it appears that Petitioner may be proposing to substitute that efficient, rapid, and accurate algorithm into Baker’s system. Xu’s algorithm is efficient and accurate when it is “ready to use.” See Pet. 21. According to Petitioner (see id.), human assessment ceases before the algorithm becomes “ready to use” because human assessment is used only to “train up” the algorithm. Accordingly, the use of Xu’s system, after having been trained up and ready to use, would not involve human assessment of any subset of events identified by the system. Thus, Petitioner’s identification of a “subset” as being that data apparently the subject of one hundred percent human review prior to being “ready to use” (Pet. 40) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reason why one would have combined Baker and Xu. Further, Petitioner’s style of addressing claim terms in a vacuum leaves us unable to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a likelihood of proving the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious. It is not enough for Petitioner to assert that one or more references disclose a human assessment of a subset of data. See Prelim. Resp. 40. In claim 1, for example, the “subset” is of the “identified AF events,” which ties the subset to the limitation directed to identifying AF events and to the “pictographically presenting” limitation, which is based on the human assessment of the subset of the identified AF events. Petitioner does not adequately explain why or how the three relied-upon references would have been combined or modified such that all of the limitations of the claimed subject matter would have been satisfied at the same time in the same related manner as in the claims. Accordingly, Petitioner does not persuasively articulate an adequate reason why and how the teachings of the three reliedupon references would have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter as a whole.” slip op. at 12

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

    “display of Hatke’s Figure 6 is “strikingly similar” to that of Figures 2 and 4 of the ’996 patent, with Hatke’s “detected events on top of the trend data instead of below it.” Pet. 41–42. We determine that Petitioner’s argument is insufficient because it primarily relies on the purported similarity in appearance of the figures and fails to articulate sufficiently how the prior art suggests the claim limitation. We also agree with Patent Owner that this use of the ’996 patent hints at hindsight. See Prelim. Resp. 29 (“Aside from a desire to recreate Figure 2 of the ’996 patent, Petitioner fails to explain why the skilled person would have wanted to do this.”). Additionally, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that Hatke’s figure is “strikingly similar” to that of the ’996 patent. At most, Hatke’s oxyhemoglobin saturation data has an I-beam shape like that of the ’996 patent’s heart rate. However, Hatke’s histogram showing the quantity of apnea events does not have the appearance of AF burden. Rather, Petitioner is forced to look to a separate figure in Hatke, Figure 7, to find what Petitioner calls “blocks” similar to those of the ’996 patent. Id. at 43–44. Petitioner then proposes modifying Hatke’s Figure 6 by “dumbing [it] down,” apparently proposing to convert the quantities of apnea events to blocks depicting apnea event duration, reasoning that drawing a line for time span was a well-known and intuitive technique to depict time span. Id. at 44; see also id. at 46 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that displaying AF burden merely is drawing AF event time spans as a line). We do not find this persuasive because the fact that one could depict duration as a line does not explain adequately why one would modify Figure 6, even in the context of apnea events. Further, even were we to accept that it first would have been obvious to modify a display related to sleep apnea to arrive at Petitioner’s proposed modified Figure 6, Petitioner fails to explain persuasively why one would have utilized that proposed modified display—which would show oxyhemoglobin saturation and respiratory effort—as the format to display heart rate and AF burden. Mere similarity of appearance—particularly assuming, as we must, that one of ordinary skill lacks the knowledge of the figures of the ’996 patent—does not point towards an eventual conclusion of obviousness of the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,907,996
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01451 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: it exercised discretion as to claims 43–46, 49, 50, 62–69, and 72, and found no reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 55–58.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition. Patent Owner argues that we should decline to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the Petition raises the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments that were presented previously to the Office. Prelim. Resp. 19–26. In particular, Patent Owner contends that each of the claims in the reexamination was rejected based on Eddison, under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or in combination with Jewkes under § 103(a), and that Petitioner relies upon Jewkes again under § 102(b) in its Petition. Id. at 23–26. Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why the references that form the bases for Petitioner’s challenge here are not the same or substantially similar prior art to that presented during the reexamination or why the arguments are not the same or substantially similar to those presented previously to the Office. Eddison and Jewkes were relied upon in the reexamination. See id. at 141–60 (Office Action (mailed Aug. 25, 2014)). Additionally, Tandberg was presented to the Office in conjunction with the original prosecution of the ’817 patent. See Ex. 2003; Prelim. Resp. 28.” slip op. at 9

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “Patent Owner makes a valid point. Section 1.530(k) of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides: “Amendments not effective until certificate. Although the Office actions will treat proposed amendments as though they have been entered, the proposed amendments will not be effective until the reexamination certificate is issued and published.” This places us in a difficult position. If Patent Owner ultimately succeeds in the appeal of the reexamination, a certificate will issue and the amendments to claim 43 and its dependents will be “effective.” See id.; see Ex. 1007, 166 (showing the amendments to claim 43). Yet Petitioner provides no analysis of the amended limitations of claim 43. See, e.g., Pet. 16. Alternatively, if Patent Owner is unsuccessful in its appeal to the Federal Circuit, claim 43 and its dependents, as challenged in the reexamination, will be declared unpatentable. In either circumstance, any review we undertake of the unamended version of claim 43, and the claims depending therefrom, will be for naught. Accordingly, in light of the above circumstances, reviewing these claims on the record presented would waste judicial resources as well as the resources of the parties.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated a clear reason as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Jewkes’s drilling assembly to include the additional structures taught by Tandberg and Eddison. We recognize that Petitioner points to Tandberg’s teaching that employing the same fundamental structure as an underreamer and as a stabilizer has an advantage, but Petitioner never explains what that advantage is or why it would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jewkes.5 Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the combination of Jewkes, Tandberg, and Eddison would have rendered the subject matter of claims 55–58 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 12

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,732,817
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2016-01450 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), citing overlapping prior art and arguments, the pending reexamination appeal, and resource conservation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “D. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Section 325(d) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides: “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In light of § 325(d), we consider whether the reexamination contains the same or substantially the same art or arguments as presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Although Petitioner and Patent Owner present proposed constructions for several claim terms, no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. Pet. 15–21; Prelim. Resp. 10–23.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerGranted

    “On August 29, 2016, Petitioner requested, via electronic mail, to file a motion to correct its identification of the real party in interest in this proceeding. In particular, Petitioner requested the addition of Baker Hughes Incorporated as a real party in interest. Petitioner indicated that Patent Owner would not oppose its request. In a responsive email on September 29, 2016, we authorized Petitioner to file a motion to correct the identified real party in interest. On October 4, 2016, Petitioner filed an Updated Mandatory Notice in which Petitioner stated that it “moves the Board to allow correction of Petitioner’s Real Part in Interest (‘RPI’) disclosure.” Paper 8, 1. Although Petitioner did not file a motion to correct as it had requested, we treat its updated mandatory notice as such and hereby grant Petitioner’s request. Accordingly, Baker Hughes Incorporated is a real party in interest in this proceeding as well.” slip op. at 3

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,732,817
• Nu Mark LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1, B.V.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2016-01309 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the Brooks and Whittemore § 103(a) ground substantially the same as art and arguments previously considered by the Office.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the content of Brooks is the same or substantially the same as the disclosures in the EP Publication and the ’875 patent. A comparison of Brooks, the EP Publication, and the ’875 patent demonstrates that the smoking article described in the EP Publication and the flavor delivery article described in the ’875 patent are the same in all material respects as the smoking article described in Brooks.” slip op. at 11

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,863,752
• Canon Inc. / Canon U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KGInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2016-01223 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 27–30, 33, and 35 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). In that regard, Dr. Reynolds testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two [years of] experience in studying or developing computer interfaces or peripherals.” Ex. 1306 ¶ 40. Dr. Reynolds further testifies that such an artisan also would have been “familiar with operating systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file systems (e.g., a [file allocation table (“FAT”)] file system), device drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces).” Id. Patent Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are mostly consistent with Patent Owner’s view, but nonetheless contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have at least three years of experience, or, alternatively, five or more years of experience without a bachelor’s degree. Prelim. Resp. 19. We do not observe any meaningful differences between the parties’ definition of a 7 person of ordinary skill in the art. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either level of skill. We further find that the prior art (e.g., Ex. 1305) in the instant proceeding reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We note that only those claim terms and elements which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The parties propose constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 17–19; Prelim. Resp. 16–17, 20–28. For purposes of this Decision, however, we do not find it necessary to address explicitly any claim term.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “unpatentable under § 102(b) as anticipated by McNeill. For the same reasons discussed above in relation to the obviousness challenges to claims 1–25, 27–30, and 33, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for any of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–25, 27–30, 33, and 35 of the ’746 patent. We, therefore, decline to institute inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. IV. ORDER It is ordered that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Patent Owner argues that “Petitioners fail to identify where McNeill discloses an analog signal acquisition channel” (Prelim. Resp. 36) and does not show that “this missing element must inherently, i.e., necessarily, be present based on McNeill’s disclosure” (id. at 39). We agree with Patent Owner and determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that McNeill discloses or would have made obvious an “analog signal acquisition channel” as required by claim 1. Id. at 40. In its analysis of the data acquisition channels, Petitioner states only that “McNeill discloses that the target system can emulate any type of peripheral” one type of which is a scanner. Pet. 35. According to Petitioner “[i]t is implicit and inherent for a scanner to have an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from analog source.” Id. Petitioner goes on to assert that a typical scanner, as of the priority date, would produce a digital representation of an image and transmit that image “to an interface device (e.g. McNeill’s target computer) across a peripheral device communications channel, such as a SCSI bus or a parallel bus conforming to the IEEE 1284 standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1306 ¶ 98). Nothing 10 in this analysis, however, explains how the communications channel is an analog data acquisition channel. Nor does Petitioner point to anything else in McNeill that it is relying on for disclosure of such an analog data acquisition channel. Id. Finally, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill would find the addition of an analog data acquisition channel obvious in light of the teachings of McNeill. See Pet. 35. Petitioner’s only discussion of this issue confusingly states that “[a]dding an analog sensor to the ‘exemplary system’ of McNeill is inherent, but if it is not, a POSITA would find it obvious to do so.” Id. The ’746 patent, however, does not use the term “sensor” in the claims. Ex. 1301. And Petitioner does not explain how an “analog sensor” relates to an “analog signal acquisition channel.” Id. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill would find obvious adding an “analog sensor” based on McNeill’s disclosure, it is unclear why or how that would result in “an analog signal acquisition channel,” and it is Petitioner’s burden to provide sufficiently articulated reasoning for the alleged modification of McNeill resulting in an “analog signal acquisition channel.”” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,504,746
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Astrazeneca ABInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2016-01325 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Mylan did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–20 obvious over McLeskey alone or with Howell 1996.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. We are, nevertheless, cautioned not to “rely on hindsight reasoning to piece together elements to arrive at the claimed invention.” In re NTP, Inc. 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Thus, a finding of obviousness, “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party petitioning the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). D.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art. The parties’ propose similar, albeit non-identical, definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art, both of which are consistent with the high level of ordinary skill demonstrated by the prior art asserted in the Petition. See Pet. 14–15; Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Discerning no present conflict between the parties’ proposals, we rely on the level of ordinary skill in the art of developing and treating hormone dependent diseases of the breast as demonstrated by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). B.” slip op. at 15

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

    “patentable weight, the term “therapeutically significant” should be construed to mean “any blood plasma fulvestrant concentration greater than or equal to at least 2.5 ngml-1 that is achieved for at least 4 weeks after injection.” Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is unreasonable, but contends that the meaning of the term is clear from the Specification and context of the claim phrase itself. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1001, 9:24–27 (expressly defining “therapeutically significant” fulvestrant blood plasma levels as “at least 2.5 ngml-1, ideally at least 3 ngml-1, at least 8.5 ngml-1, and up to 12 12 Our reasoning extends to the wherein clauses of dependent claims 2 and 10, also challenged by Petitioner at page 16, footnote 9, of the Petition. ngml-1 of fulvestrant [] achieved in the patient.”). We agree with Patent Owner. No express construction of this term is required.” slip op. at 17

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

    “and 9, “wherein the method achieves a therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml-1 for at least four weeks,” is merely a statement of intended result entitled to no patentable weight. Pet. 16–17. For the reasons set forth at pages 12–16 of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive.12 For example, rather than merely stating the result of intramuscularly administering the recited formulation, as Petitioner argues, the wherein clause dictates both the administration duration and dose of the formulation, i.e., an amount sufficient to provide a therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration of at least 2.5 ngml-1 for at least four weeks. See Prelim. Resp. 15 (relying on Exhibits 2002 ¶ 37–39, Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 33–37, and citations therein). That these parameters are further limited in claims 2, 10 (“the therapeutically significant blood plasma fulvestrant concentration is at least 8.5 ngml-1”) further indicates that the wherein clauses provide defining characteristics. See Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 60).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,329,680
• Ima S.P.A. / Fillshape S.R.L. v. Indag Gesellschaft FÜR Industriebedarf MBH & Co. Betriebs KGInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · IPR2016-01153 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioners did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “as to which portions of Resterhouse Petitioners rely on as teaching each element of claim 1. The rules governing this proceeding require that a petition “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As the Federal Circuit has recently indicated, “[t]he Board is not free to disregard its own regulations.” Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 6694956 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). The Federal Circuit has also emphasized the need, in AIA proceedings, for petitioners to articulate their challenges with specificity in their initial petitions. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 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.’ 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). . . . Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.”). In this case, the Petition’s arguments concerning claim 1 fall short of the requirements of § 42.104(b)(4) because the Petition does not link each element of the claim to a particular disclosure or structure in the reference on which Petitioners rely. Specifically, it is unclear which portion of Resterhouse, in Petitioners’ theory, discloses a “transferring assembly” and which portion discloses an “apparatus.” The Petition’s analysis of limitations that include those elements simply reproduces selected excerpts of Resterhouse without linking the structures described in the excerpts to each element of the claim. See Pet. 13–18.” slip op. at 15

  • BurdenDenied

    “as to which portions of Resterhouse Petitioners rely on as teaching each element of claim 1. The rules governing this proceeding require that a petition “must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). As the Federal Circuit has recently indicated, “[t]he Board is not free to disregard its own regulations.” Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 6694956 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). The Federal Circuit has also emphasized the need, in AIA proceedings, for petitioners to articulate their challenges with specificity in their initial petitions. See Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 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.’ 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). . . . Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.”). In this case, the Petition’s arguments concerning claim 1 fall short of the requirements of § 42.104(b)(4) because the Petition does not link each element of the claim to a particular disclosure or structure in the reference on which Petitioners rely. Specifically, it is unclear which portion of Resterhouse, in Petitioners’ theory, discloses a “transferring assembly” and which portion discloses an “apparatus.” The Petition’s analysis of limitations that include those elements simply reproduces selected excerpts of Resterhouse without linking the structures described in the excerpts to each element of the claim. See Pet. 13–18.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioners have not shown why it would be obvious, based on the disclosures of Sugihara and Hiramoto, for a transferring assembly to simultaneously remove a single pouch and a single spout. We note that in both references, pouch and spout removal are sequential, not simultaneous. Further, Petitioners do not explain what modifications would be made to either reference to accomplish simultaneous removal, nor do Petitioners provide a persuasive reason why a skilled artisan would make such a modification.” slip op. at 23

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,648,017
• Katun Corporation v. Toshiba Tec Corporation And Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · IPR2016-01149 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 3, or 11 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “For the reasons explained below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “state an intended use or that the claims define a structurally complete invention without the image forming apparatus. “A claim’s preamble may limit the claim when the claim drafter uses the preamble to define the subject matter of the claim.” August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[W]hen the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the one the patent protects.”). The preamble generally is construed to be limiting if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “For example, the preamble may be construed as limiting when it recites particular structure or steps that are highlighted as important by the specification.” Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 739 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Additionally, ‘[w]hen limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.’” Id. (citing NTP, 418 F.3d at 1306).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “process parameters.” The specification of the ’091 patent defines this claim term: “The image formation parameter means set values for the operations of the photoconductive drum 11a, the developing device 13a, the cleaner 16a, the charger 17a, and the fixing device 19 performing the printing operation.” Ex. 1001, 4:4–7. Examples of these set values include “charging voltage values of the charger 17a for the printing operation and the like.” Id. at 4:12–15.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument. As discussed above, we construe “image formation process parameters” to mean “set values for controlling the operation of the printing components of the image forming apparatus.” While Best’s operating data may be stored on the chip card of the toner container, they are not set values. Best explains that the operating data include toner type and counter reading. Ex. 1010, 8:1–2. Referring to Figure 6, Best further explains that, “in Step S7, specific electrophotographic values such as a value KW for the setting of the contrast are then set dependent on the identified toner type.” Id. at 9:39–42 (emphasis added), Fig. 6. Moreover, Figure 6 of Best shows that step S7 – setting electrophotographic values – takes place in a control panel process controller (or PC-control panel), which is a part of the printer, not the toner container. Id. at Figs. 4–6. Thus, as Patent Owner points out, “the memory on the toner container of Best does not contain [the recited] ‘image formation process parameters.’” Prelim. Resp. 36.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 8,554,091
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Ltd. / Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Monosol RX, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2016 · IPR2016-01111 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 9, 15, 62–65, 69–73, or 75 were unpatentable over either asserted § 103 combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for one claim phrase: “dried without the loss of substantial uniformity,” appearing in independent claims 1 and 62. Pet. 15. According to Petitioner, that claim phrase should be construed broadly to mean “any method of drying.” Id. In support of that construction, Petitioner asserts only that Patent Owner’s expert witness in a co-pending litigation “testified that the claims were not limited to any particular form of drying, or any particular drying parameters.” Id. Patent Owner correctly notes that Petitioner has not explained why it has failed to account for the phrase “without the loss of substantial uniformity” in its proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 8. Further, Patent Owner proposes that, under the broadest reasonable construction standard, the claim phrase “dried without the loss of substantial uniformity” should be given its plain meaning. Id. Based on the record, we agree.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Nor has Petitioner explained persuasively that a skilled artisan would have understood that individual doses of a pharmaceutical film cut by a rotary die can only be manufactured this way if the film does not vary more than 10%. Pet. 31–32. Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Celik’s testimony in that regard rely upon a statement in the challenged patent that “[c]urrently, as required by various world regulatory authorities, dosage forms may not vary more than 10% in the amount of active present.” Pet. 32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 101; Ex. 1001, 2:42–45. Petitioner and Dr. Celik acknowledge, however, that not all regulatory authorities require that limit. Specifically, Petitioner and Dr. Celik recognize that in the United States, “any given dose of the drug must have the same amount of active as any other dose, within a variance of 15%,” referring to the standard set by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Pet. 22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81. Thus, at best, Petitioner’s reliance on the disclosure of the challenged patent regarding the standards set by the FDA or “various world regulatory authorities” provides a motivation for a person of skill in the art to modify the cited prior art to achieve a product film wherein the individual unit doses do not vary by more than 15%, or perhaps not more than 10%. However, even if such motivation exists, Petitioner has not shown how that the cited prior art or other knowledge in the art at the time of the invention would have informed an artisan how to reach that goal. As Patent Owner correctly asserts, “[r]ecognition of a need does not render obvious the achievement that meets that need.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (quoting Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Insofar as Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed only routine experimentation to make films within the claimed variance limitation, we are unpersuaded. Pet. 27, 34. In a somewhat cursory manner, Petitioner supports that contention by asserting that a person of skill in the art “would have understood that mixing, de-gassing, viscosity and drying are all important variables to control in order to ensure uniformity, and would have been able to make routine adjustments of these variables in Chen’s process to meet the 10% limit.” Pet. 34. Dr. Celik makes a similar statement in his declaration. Ex. 1003 ¶ 104. However, neither statement by Petitioner or Dr. Celik includes a discussion of facts allegedly supporting those assertions.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “indicating near-maximal release, and that the final values for the drug release “are clustered within ±10% of 100.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 103. According to Dr. Çelik, “[f]rom these data, a person of ordinary skill would reasonably have concluded that the films were within the claimed 10% limit.” Id. We are unpersuaded. In particular, what is missing from Dr. Çelik’s testimony is an explanation of his data analysis. Chen’s Figure 5 is reproduced below: Ex. 1005, Fig. 5. Chen’s Figure 5 shows the release profile of four active agents from films according to Chen’s Examples 5–8. Ex. 1005, 16:27–28. Chen does not discuss the data represented in Figure 5 or otherwise provide it.2 Nor does 2 Petitioner asserts that the Board “has found on appeal in three reexaminations directed to similar subject matter that Chen discloses substantial uniformity.” Pet. 35. As discussed, infra, those decisions did not Dr. Çelik present his opinion regarding the relevant specific data points reflected in Figure 5. Rather, Dr. Çelik opines, in a conclusory fashion, that the data shows, despite the unexplained error bars in the figure and lack of specific data points provided, that “the final recorded values for the data collected . . . fall at or within ‡ 10% of 100% (i.e., 90% to 110%),” and that a person of skill in the art would, therefore, conclude that “Chen’s films had at least the claimed uniformity.” Ex. 1003, 38 n.7. Because Dr. Çelik has not provided a reliable factual basis for his opinion on this matter, those opinions are not entitled to persuasive weight. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (a declaration expressing an opinion of an expert without disclosing underlying facts may be given no weight).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,603,514

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.