• Seabed Geosolutions (US), Inc. v. Magseis FF LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2018-00961 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 9–24 are unpatentable under the stated § 103(a) grounds; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “7. Our Analysis of Claim 1 As we analyze the evidence, Mattaboni’s Figure 4 does not relate to any characteristic of its memories that limits the frequency range of recorded seismic data. Rather, Mattaboni’s Figure 4 is “the product of the manufacturer’s specified response curve for the geophone and the measured transfer function of the preamp and filter blocks of Figure 3.” Ex. 1006, Fig. 4 (caption). Mattaboni discloses that its memories are capable of recording data at 120 times per second, or 60 Hertz, and thus above the 50 Hertz that Patent Owner contends is necessary to record “seismic data.” Regarding Patent Owner’s statements (1) and (2) above, Patent Owner’s declarant does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which these opinions are based, and they are thus entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Regarding Patent Owner’s statement (3), Mattaboni states that the displacement response peak of its instrument is between 25 and 35 Hertz, which is the most important range for microearthquakes. Ex. 1006, 5. Mattaboni, however, also states the effective frequency band of the disclosed instrument is “from about 2 Hz to somewhat over 50 Hz (Figure 4).” Id. at 5. Thus, Mattaboni’s instrument records signals “somewhat over 50 Hz” which is “at least above 50 Hz” and in the frequency range which Patent Owner’s declarant contends is needed to record “seismic data.” Ex. 2051 ¶ 35; Ex. 1104, 301:5–302:1 (testifying that 8–50 Hz range is minimum for “seismic data” under Patent Owner’s construction).” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Considering the foregoing, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art of OBS technology would have had: (i) a bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering, geophysics, mathematics, general engineering, or equivalent thereof, and five (5) years of experience with the conduct of surveys with geophones, or the equivalent thereof, including two (2) years of work specifically with OBS technologies, or the equivalent thereof; or (ii) a bachelor’s degree and an advanced degree in electrical or mechanical engineering, geophysics, mathematics, general engineering, or equivalent thereof, and four (4) years of experience with the conduct of surveys with geophones, two (2) years of which involve work specifically with OBS technologies, or the equivalent thereof. We adopt these statements as describing the level of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the 761 Patent in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner contends there is a “heavy presumption” that claims terms have their ordinary meaning (CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)), and that Patent Owner did not overcome this presumption with a clear and precise definition (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Reply 8. Claim terms must be construed, however, in light of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d at 1257. In the Specification, the 761 Patent describes “seismic data” as resulting from an acoustic signal from a seismic energy source that propagates into the earth and is partially reflected at subsurface lithologic or fluid boundaries and is detected and recorded as seismic energy data by seismic receivers. Ex. 1030, 1:12–23. Petitioner argues that this passage of the 761 Patent does not mention “seismic data.” We note, however, that this passage does mention “seismic energy data” which is shortened to “seismic data” when mentioned later in the 761 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1030, 2:48–51, 3:17–19, 3:26–30, 3:35–40, 3:61–63, 9:41–63. Petitioner further contends that several publications establish that “seismic data” is not limited to the oil and gas industry, but may be used in other fields such as earthquake monitoring. Reply. 10 (citing Exs. 1112– 1114, 1121). Patent Owner argues that its constructions are consistent with, and supported by, other publications from the oil and gas industry. PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004, 213–232). Collectively, these publications establish that the term “seismic data” is used differently in different fields, but the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the patent’s Specification. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–50 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260–61 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As the 761 Patent uses the term “seismic data” consistent with the meaning proposed by Patent Owner, and not the more expansive definition proposed by Petitioner, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction as the correct one to use for our analysis in this decision. The plain meanings of claim terms are construed not in a vacuum, but in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d at 1257. Our construction of “seismic data” and “seismic data recorder” is consistent with the 761 Patent’s use of the terms.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that Patent Owner’s failure to re-allege the argument in the Response waives the argument that Schmalfeldt is not a “printed publication.” See In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding waiver where a patent owner “challenged the public accessibility of the prior art references during the preliminary proceedings of the inter partes review . . . but failed to challenge public accessibility during the trial phase”); SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 81 (Sept. 13, 2013); Paper 12. In any case, Petitioner has demonstrated Schmalfeldt is a printed publication for reasons noted. Dec. Inst. 10–20; see also Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1105). Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has shown Schmalfeldt is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,228,761 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,228,761
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Asus Computer International, Inc. v. James B. GoodmanSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 29, 2019 · IPR2017-02021 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 are unpatentable over Ooishi and Palaniswami, with Abe added for claims 10 and 16; claims 2–4, 6–9, and 11–15, 17–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of a control device “for selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from respective address lines and respective control lines so that when said memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals received on said respective address lines and respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10 requires that the control device electrically isolate the memory devices from all address and control lines that communicate with the memory devices.10” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’315 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had, inter alia, a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, computer engineering; or the equivalent training, and would have had approximately 2 to 3 years of experience in computer systems, circuits, electronics, or a related discipline. Pet. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 8. Based on our review of the ’315 patent, the cited prior art, and Dr. Wolfe’s testimony, we determine a specific finding regarding ordinary skill level is not required as the prior art reflects an appropriate level. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). However, to the extent a specific finding regarding the level of skill is required, we find Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the teachings of the prior art and adopt Petitioner’s description of a POSITA as someone who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, or computer engineering; or the equivalent training, and would have had approximately two to three years of experience in computer systems, circuits, electronics, or a related discipline.” See Pet. 9.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). A reference is deemed publically accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence can locate it. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner asserts JESD21-C was published January 1997 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 37–38. As support, Petitioner relies upon the Declaration of John J. Kelley (“the Kelley Declaration”), the current President of the Solid State Technology Association of the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (“JEDEC”). See Ex. 1007 ¶ 2. Mr. Kelly states that JEDEC specification JESD21-C, Configurations for Solid State Memories, Release 7 (January 1997), a copy of which is attached to his declaration as Exhibit 17, “was made publicly available in January 1997.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 7. Mr. Kelley testifies that in January 1997 copies of the entire JESD21-C volume “would . . . have been available for purchase by anyone in the public” and that “pages comprising the specifically updated modules would have been sent to those who subscribed to the annual updating service for JESD21-C.” Id. ¶ 6. Patent Owner does not dispute that JESD21-C qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See PO Resp. 7. Based on the current record, we determine JESD21-C qualifies as a prior art printed publication under § 102(b).” slip op. at 19

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Dell discloses a control device that electrically isolates the memory devices as required under the claim construction set forth above in devices even when the devices are in a low-power or self-refresh mode, Petitioner has not shown that Dell’s memory devices are electrically isolated from “respective control lines” such that “any signals received on said . . . respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as required by claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’315 patent is unpatentable over Dell or that claim 10 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dell and Abe.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,243,315 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,243,315
• Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Signify Holding B.V. F/K/A Philips Lighting Holding B.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 18, 2019 · IPR2018-00921 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 22, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Biebl; claims 7 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed combinations lacked sufficient support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The Specification supports the construction that an oscillating signal is periodically varying. For instance, the Specification states that “the low frequency oscillating signal changes from low to high.” Ex. 1001, 2:35–37. In another example, “the oscillating signal can be a square wave oscillating between 0 and 16 volts with a frequency of 200 to 300 Hertz.” Id. at 4:17– 20. In these examples, the ’890 patent uses term “oscillating” to describe signals having periodic variation or change. Thus, we construe “an oscillating signal” as a signal with periodic variation. generating an oscillating signal. Petitioner’s definition from a technical dictionary merely adds that an oscillator is (1) an electronic circuit and (2) “converts energy from a direct-current source.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1021, 3 (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1341–40 (4th ed. 1989))). There is no dispute about a direct-current source. The Specification discusses an “oscillator” in terms of its function. See Ex. 1001, 2:17–19, 26–27; 44–48. Thus, we determine that “oscillator” means an electronic circuit that generates an oscillating signal.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Patent indicates that either set of resistors can perform the claimed function. Prelim. Resp. 12. For instance, R1A1, R1A2, and R1A3 appear in the schematic diagram in Figure 2A. This diagram shows a first power supply 112 that supplies current to LED array 114. Ex. 1001, 3:11–12. LED array 114 responds to signals for the STOP input 104 or TURN input 102. Id. at 3:12–14. The resistors are between the first power supply 112 and LED array 114 to sense current. Id. at 3:31–35. By contrast, R1B1, R1B2, and R1B3 appear in the schematic diagram in Figure 2C. This diagram shows a second power supply (130) that supplies power to LED array 126. Id. at 3:55–56. LED array 126 responds to signals for the STOP input 104 or TAIL input 106, depending on the input mode. Id. at 3:56–59. Figure 2C shows the resistors connected to the second power supply 130. Id., Fig. 2C. So the two sets of resistors perform the same function but are connected to different power supplies. Thus, the structures disclosed in the Specification as corresponding to the claimed function are (1) R1A1, R1A2, or R1A3 or (2) R1B1, R1B2, or corresponding structure because it is immaterial to our analysis below.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Any difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are immaterial because, as Dr. Zane explains, “applying Dr. Shackle’s standard for the level of ordinary skill in the art would not affect [Dr. Zane’s] analysis and conclusion regarding the patentability of any challenged claim.” Id. ¶ 27. So we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted references. See Okajima v. Bordeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Yet nothing in the claim suggests that visual characteristics are relevant. Rather, claim 1’s system uses the recited states for a purpose unrelated to viewing waveforms—i.e., to determine whether to supply power or not. See Ex. 1001, 5:24–27. So we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that slope or other visual characteristics should be the only basis for defining the states. See PO Resp. 15. Thus, Petitioner has shown that Biebl teaches “an oscillating signal having a first state and a second state.”” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,586,890 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,586,890
• Lego Systems, Inc. / Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. v. Figurefun LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 26, 2019 · IPR2018-00755 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over each listed reference combination; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science with courses and experience in relevant mathematics and three to five years of experience with designing and developing coin-operated electronic gaming devices with electronic displays (such as slot machines).” Ex. 2001 ¶ 19. Any differences regarding additional experience in the parties’ competing proposals for the level of ordinary skill does not affect our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges.” slip op. at 8

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

    “action figure.” See, e.g., id. at 10:21–24 (“Here, it is not necessary that the token with built-in IC chip is configured so integrally with the action figure that the action figure may be fixed firmly and cannot be removed from the token.”), 10:24–25 (“The action figure may be configured so as to be detachable from the token, which is disk-shaped.”). As discussed above, the claims require a “token for a gaming machine” that comprises an integrated circuit chip or a storage section being “detachable from a figure.” Id. at 23:58–62, 26:9–13. The Specification also describes figures with integrated tokens with built-in IC chips (id. at 5:49–54), but the claims are directed by their express terms to embodiments of tokens with detachable figures. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that “token” does not include a “figure.” Thus, the term “token” cannot include within its scope a “figure.” To resolve the parties’ dispute regarding patentability, we need only determine that the term “token” does not include an “figure.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Any further express interpretation is not required for our analysis. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. slip op. at 12

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

    “As discussed above, we find that Lee teaches that, in the embodiment shown in its Figure 2, “transducer 64 can be attached to a preexisting wrestling figure” so that “a child who has a collection of various action figures can use those figures as part of the activity center.” Ex. 1004, 6:44– 51. Lee, thus, supports Petitioner’s declarant testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Levy so that its integrated circuit chip is detachable in the same manner as Lee so that “various action figures can be used with the token.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 88 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:46–51). We also find that modifying Levy as proposed by Petitioner is within ordinary skill. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 59. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification.” slip op. at 34

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

    “G. Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness The parties do not direct us to any objective evidence of nonobviousness. See generally Pet.; PO Resp.; Tr. 72:19–22 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating it did not submit objective evidence of non-obviousness).” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 7,338,377 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,338,377
• L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 30, 2019 · PGR2018-00025 · APJ Timothy G Majors · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13, 19–23, 29, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 14–16, 18, and 24–28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “combination of Pratt and Tanabe teaches or suggests all of claim 1’s limitations, and that the skilled artisan had a sufficient reason to combine the art as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the bleaching method that is claimed. Before reaching a conclusion of obviousness, however, we consider the parties’ argument and evidence related to alleged objective indicia of nonobviousness. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “those exhibits) as discussed above in the context for which they were offered (objective indicia of nonobviousness as to alleged unexpected results and industry skepticism). We gave the exhibits little weight on those issues for the reasons explained, and ultimately found in Petitioner’s favor—that objective indicia of nonobviousness did not outweigh the evidence of obviousness on this record. Thus, excluding this evidence would not change the result. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 2038 and 2041 as moot.” slip op. at 85

  Patent outcomesUS 9,668,954 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,668,954
• Blasters, Inc v. Waterblasting, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2019 · IPR2018-00504 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Clemons and NLB; claims 5 and 6 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both Mr. Boos’s and Dr. King’s assessments appear consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Further, neither expert has testified, and neither party has argued, that the difference in the experts’ assessments would affect the analysis of any asserted ground. Under the circumstances, we adopt Dr. King’s assessment due to its greater specificity. We, however, determine the differences between the experts’ assessments would not affect our analysis; we would reach the same conclusions using either assessment.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction for “articulating link.” In this proceeding, we construe a claim term to have its broadest reasonable construction. Petitioner’s proposed construction, which is broader than Patent Owner’s proposal, is reasonable in light of the Specification. The only non-testimonial evidence in the record for the ordinary meanings of the terms “articulating” and “link” are the dictionary definitions provided by Petitioner (Ex. 1012, 1015), and those dictionary definitions support Petitioner’s proposed construction. The 1999 edition of the Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology provides an engineering definition for “articulation,” which is “[t]he connection of two parts in such a way (usually by a pin joint) as to permit relative movement.” Ex. 1015. The 2004 edition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “link” as “a connecting structure.” Ex. 1012. Mr. Boos testifies, and we agree, that these definitions are evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the ordinary meaning of “articulating link” to be “a connecting structure that connects two parts in such a way as to permit relative movement.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 9. Further, Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the disclosure of an articulating link in the Specification, which describes articulating link 31 as connecting blast head 23 and tractor 20, and permitting relative movement between those parts. Ex. 1001, 4:11–14 (“horizontal movement” and “vertical movement”). In addition, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is not a reasonable construction in light of the Specification. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. King directs us to any portion of the Specification that expressly defines the term “articulating link.” Instead, the cited portions of the Specification describe what one exemplary articulating link, link 31, does. For example, a cited portion of the Specification describes that articulating link 31 is capable of horizontal and vertical movement and has a rotatable connection with arms 37, 38, 44, and 45. Ex. 1001, 4:11–43 (cited by Ex. 2012 ¶ 40). Nowhere does the Specification, however, indicate that all articulating links must have such a capacity and such a connection. See id. Instead, the Specification merely discloses that this particular exemplary articulating link has these features. Id. In the absence of an explicit or implicit definition, we cannot read limitations from the Specification into the claims. Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We do not need to provide a different construction because Patent Owner does not dispute that NLB discloses a cleaning system. Therefore, any dispute between the parties that could exist regarding the meaning of the term “cleaning system” is not material to any patentability issue we need to decide. 3. Disputes that Concern Only Petitioner’s Alternative Arguments The parties propose differing constructions for the terms “hard surface,” “high pressure,” “blast head,” “coatings,” and “high power vacuum pump.” Compare Pet. 13–17, with PO Resp. 7–9. The differences in the parties’ constructions for these terms are material only to Petitioner’s alternative arguments that the asserted references without NLB would disclose the recited “hard surface,” “high pressure,” “blast head,” “coatings,” and “high power vacuum pump.” Because we do not need to address those alternative arguments in this Decision, we do not need to construe these terms, as we explain in more detail below. First, Petitioner proposes construing “hard surface,” recited in claims 1 and 4, as “any surface having rigidity sufficient to support the weight of a vehicle carrying the blast head.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner proposes construing the term as “the surface of a material that is hard enough to withstand high-pressure water blasting without disintegrating, for instance paving material in common use for road, parking lot, and airport runway surfaces such as asphalt or concrete.” PO Resp. 8–9. The differences between these proposed claim constructions are material only to Petitioner’s alternative arguments that the asserted references without NLB would disclose a hard surface. Under both parties’ constructions, NLB’s roads, concrete, and asphalt are “hard surfaces,” which neither party has disputed. Ex. 1006, 2. Therefore, we do not need to construe “hard surface.”” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “After evaluating the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Mr. Boos is an interested witness because of his positions with and his equity stake in Petitioner, and in evaluating his testimony, we consider his status as an interested witness in determining the probative weight of his opinions. For example, when Mr. Boos’s testimony is not sufficiently corroborated by objective evidence, we attribute little or no weight to his testimony due to that interest. When Mr. Boos’s testimony is sufficiently corroborated by objective evidence, however, we do not so discount his testimony. We do not agree with Petitioner’s suggestion that Patent Owner had to prove that Mr. Boos’s interest influenced his testimony for us to take into account that interest. Patent Owner established Mr. Boos’s interest. Therefore, we consider that interest when evaluating Mr. Boos’s testimony. Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1465. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s other arguments for discounting Mr. Boos’s testimony. First, we do not read the testimony of Mr. Boos cited by Patent Owner as demonstrating that Petitioner’s attorneys, rather than Mr. Boos, were responsible for the technical opinions provided in his declarations. Ex. 1023, 16:10–18:3. Mr. Boos describes the preparation of his declaration as a collaboration with Petitioner’s attorneys. Id. Mr. Boos clarified that Petitioner’s attorneys helped with the legal parts of the declarations, but that Mr. Boos wrote the technical conclusions in his declaration. Id. at 240:24–241:23. Second, Mr. Boos articulated a motivation for combining references. See, e.g., Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 142–147.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,255,116 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,255,116
• Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. / Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. et al. v. Microspherix LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2019 · IPR2018-00393 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 10–19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6 and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMixed

    “B. Motivation to Combine De Nijs and Schopflin The parties dispute whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would” slip op. at 21

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

    “that Merck failed to add a radiopaque marker to its Implanon device and that the lack of a negative impact on release rates shows unexpected success. PO Resp. 64; see also id. at 54 (“There is no dispute De Nijs does not discuss using a marker, and that Implanon did not use a marker.”). Petitioner states that the Implanon device is the commercial embodiment of Example 5 of De Nijs. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 2002, 3:15–16; Ex. 1067, 297:7–9). Example 5 of De Nijs has no polysiloxane jacket and no sealing of implant ends. Accordingly, this argument would be more relevant to claims 6 and 9 discussed below, which recite open ends or pores. Our analysis of claim 1 focuses on the broader scope of claim 1, which includes both sealed and 14 Patent Owner cited this case in its response. See PO Resp. 32. Accordingly, we do not find Petitioner’s reliance on this case at oral argument to be waived. 15 The Court in Intelligent Bio-Systems emphasized that there is a distinction between reasonable expectation of success and reason to pursue the references’ teachings. Id. at 1366–1368. According to Intelligent Bio- Systems, reasonable expectation of success only looks to “likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention” and that, for example, appropriate cleavage conditions would have been irrelevant to the inquiry where such conditions are not required by the claim at issue. Id. at 1367. Inquiry into motivation to combine, however, considers whether a person having skill in the art would have believed that there was a reason for reaching the claimed invention in the first place. Id. at 1368; see also KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”).” slip op. at 27

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

    “the examiner during the prosecution of the Veenstra patent. We note, however, that the claims in the prosecution of the unrelated Veenstra patent only reached allowance after incorporation of language that captured Veenstra’s unexpected results for localization of the barium sulfate as set out the specification. In other words, Merck’s other positions during the prosecution of the Veenstra patent were not successful. Because, Merck did not succeed “in persuading a court13 to accept that party’s earlier position” we do not find that estoppel applies to Petitioner in this proceeding. New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750–51. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s position that Petitioner is estopped from arguing that the addition of a marker disclosed in Schopflin to De Nijs’s implant is obvious.” slip op. at 21

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “First, Petitioner asserts certain exhibits and testimony should be excluded as irrelevant because they have not been discussed in any substantive paper. Paper 36, 2–4. But, as Patent Owner notes, Dr. Kiser cited the objected-to exhibits in his declarations to show his understanding of the state of the art. Paper 38, 3. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that the uncited portions of Dr. Kiser’s declarations include paragraphs of technical and legal background that provide context for his opinions. Id. at 5–6. We agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Kiser’s understanding of the state of the art and the exhibits supporting that understanding are relevant to the understanding of persons of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 3–5. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude such testimony and exhibits.” slip op. at 70

  Patent outcomesUS 9,636,402 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,636,402
• Hoya Optical Labs Of America, Inc. v. Inland Diamond Products Co.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00178 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4–6, and 9–11 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The claims at issue are apparatus claims rather than process claims. Accordingly, no specific means of achieving the interference fit is required. We construe “interference fit” as a structural limitation specifying the relationship of the bevel and frame. Even if construed as a product-by-process limitation (with the process being the insertion of a lens within a frame of lesser size), “determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Patent Owner frames its proposed construction in terms of the process by which the fit comes about, but says little about the structural characteristics of the interference fit upon assembly. The Specification teaches that pressure upon the lens would lead to compression of the vertex. Ex. 1001, 4:40–55. That the vertex is in a compressed state is separately required in all claims by the “in compression” limitation. Id. at 8:54, 9:24. In view of the foregoing and in light of the parties’ arguments following institution, we modify our preliminary construction to recognize that an interference fit in this context implicates associated compressive forces. We, therefore, construe “interference fit” to mean “a relationship of the bevel of the lens and the receiving channel bottom of the eyeglass frame where such parts are in contact so as to exert frictional and compressive forces that secure the lens in place.”” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyNot reached
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner sets forth a rationale to combine the teachings of Gottschald and Schaeffer. Id. at 20. Petitioner argues that the teachings of Gottschald are applicable to the prescription lenses of Schaeffer as follows: POSITA would have been motivated by these teachings to use the method and device of Gottschald, with no change in its function, to edge the prescription plastic lens blank described by Schaeffer “so that the spectacle lens edge machining directly delivers a spectacle lens which is suitable for the selected spectacle frame, which has been ground to shape and which is provided with a bevel” (Gottschald, p. 6), and thereby to obtain the expected result of a “prescription plastic lens for use in an eyeglass frame” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 20. Patent Owner does not challenge the adequacy of Petitioner’s rationale with specificity. See PO Resp. 48–54. Rather, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on “mere conclusory statements” throughout the Petition. Id. at 49. Such a generalized argument has little force. Having reviewed the evidence as a whole, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Gottschald (regarding lens edging) and Schaeffer (regarding prescription lenses) in the manner Petitioner proposes.” slip op. at 28

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,636,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,636,360
• Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00180 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4–7, 9–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Hwang or Hwang and Balakrishnan; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable over Hwang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties formulate slightly differently their respective assessments of the skill level, neither party disputes directly the other’s assessment nor makes any arguments related to the assessments. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. The ’221 patent states its disclosure “relates, in general, to integrated circuits and, more particularly, to power converter integrated circuits.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. In view of the foregoing, we adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) (“As with any claim construction analysis, we begin with the claim language.”). None of the challenged claims (nor even unchallenged claim 8) recites the claimed disabling or terminating occurs in response to the detect signal independent of other circuit conditions or in response only to the detect signal. See Ex. 1001, 12:5–14:36. For instance, independent claim 4 merely recites, “wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 12:49–51. Independent claim 7 similarly recites, “wherein the gating circuit disables the drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 13:11–13. Independent claim 9 discloses only, “a first comparator . . . having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” Id. at 13:27–30. Finally, independent claim 15 requires, “comparing the error signal to a reference signal . . . to terminate the step of generating in response to the error signal.” Id. at 14:21–23. Therefore, the plain language of the challenged claims does not, standing alone, support adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony from their respective declarants on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “in response to” as requiring “independent of other circuit conditions.” Compare Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1) with PO Resp. 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42, 44–45.) and Sur-Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Patent Owner further directs our attention to a single sentence of deposition testimony in which Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Szepesi appears to agree with Patent Owner’s construction by stating, in the context of claim 9, that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2003, 44:16– 45:1). Petitioner rebuts Patent Owner’s arguments by identifying additional deposition testimony and statements made in a second declaration offered by Dr. Szepesi opposing Patent Owner’s construction. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1). For instance, immediately before the statement Patent Owner cites, Dr. Szepesi testified: Q: “So is it your opinion that an output for disabling the pulse generator must disable the pulse generator regardless of the other conditions in the circuit?” . . . A: “I don't understand your question. I said disabling the pulse generator means that the output of the pulse generator which is providing the pulses to the gate of the main switch, those pulses are disabled. That’s what it means in my opinion in this context.” Ex. 2003, 43:24–44:9. And, in his supplemental declaration, Dr. Szepesi states: As a first matter, I opined during my deposition that “an output disabling a pulse generator” means that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” But, at the time of my deposition I had not done a focused claim construction analysis of the limitation “a first comparator […] having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” This is because I hadn’t anticipated there being a dispute relevant to the validity analysis in view of what I understood as the plain meaning of the language. Despite the quote that Patent Owner relied upon, I believe now that a POSITA would not understand the claim language to require the first comparator to disable the output pulses independent of anything else. This belief is consistent with my responses to the first two of three successive questions in which I was asked about “disabling the pulse generator.” It is my opinion that the operation of the disclosed embodiment requires the presence of other conditions precedent before the first comparator can disable the drive pulses and this requirement is not excluded by the claim language. Ex. 1016 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Our reviewing court has made clear that extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, beyond competing declarant testimony, neither party has entered into the record extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or contemporaneous usage in the art, addressing the scope of “in response to.” Having considered the testimony upon which Patent Owner relies and weighing it against the claim language itself, the Specification’s disclosures set forth above, and the contrary testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we find on balance that it does not warrant departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of “in response to” as Patent Owner urges. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Claim 4 further recites, “a control circuit having an input coupled for receiving the detect signal, wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Patent Owner’s sole contention with respect to claim 4 is that “[t]he alleged detect signal in Hwang does not satisfy this limitation” because “unlike the ’221 patent, the alleged ‘control circuit’ does not disable the switched drive control signal ‘in response to the detect signal’ independent of other circuit conditions.” PO Resp. 15–16. As discussed above, we decline to import into claim 4 a requirement that the claimed disabling must occur independent of other circuit conditions. See supra Section III.C.1. Because Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction that we rejected above, we are not persuaded that Hwang fails to meet the limitations of claim 4. Rather, having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of independent claim 4, arranged as recited in the claim. Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the Szepesi Declaration, further demonstrates where Petitioner contends each element of dependent claims 5 and 6 is disclosed in Hwang. Pet. 21–24. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis beyond the argument raised with respect to claim 4. See PO Resp. 17. Having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, arranged as recited in these claims, and we adopt that analysis as our own. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hwang anticipates claims 4–6.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,597,221 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,597,221
• Syrinix, Inc. v. Blacoh Fluid Control, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2019 · IPR2018-00414 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 10, 12, and 14 are unpatentable; the motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 22 and 24.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “We find the above remarks made during prosecution of the ’553 patent by the applicant to be an unmistakable disavowal of pressure fluctuations caused by a leak in a pipe from the scope of “dynamic transient pressure.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the applicant narrowed the scope of “dynamic transient pressure” to exclude transient pressures caused by pipeline leaks.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and instead found the cited references to be representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 9–10 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves)). The parties have not expressed any disagreement with this finding, nor have they suggested a more definitive characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art is necessary to resolve a disputed issue. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision we again treat the cited references as being representative of the level of skill in the art. However, the factual findings and legal conclusions set forth herein would” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “claims, “the burden of persuasion ordinarily will lie with the petitioner to show that any proposed substitute claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., Case IPR2018-01129, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (Paper 15) (precedential). Before we evaluate the patentability of Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims, we first must consider whether the proposed claims satisfy the threshold statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. Id. at 4–10. Accordingly, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the amendment does not introduce new subject matter and has written description support in the original disclosure. Id.” slip op. at 74

  Patent outcomesUS 7,219,553 mixed
  Claim constructioncites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,219,553

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.