- PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00530 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 1–9 were canceled; the non-contingent motion to add substitute claims 10–18 was denied for lack of written-description support, and claim 18 was also indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“that either the ’303 application or the ’838 provisional contain adequate written description support for the disputed feature of limitation [10.d]. Though the disclosures cited by Patent Owner indicate that a secondary identifier can be used to aid in verification of a UAV, these disclosures also make clear that both first and second identifiers are transmitted by and received from the UAV. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, 4:15–17, 30:24–31:6; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 14, 66. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosure characterized as transmitting an identifier from a remote computing system “through the UAV” (Reply 2) is not persuasive. The cited disclosures from the ’303 application and ’838 provisional generally disclose that the identifiers transmitted by a UAV can be “generated remotely,” such as by a “remote computing system.” Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45. But Patent Owner has not identified disclosure indicating that a remote computing system may transmit an identifier to the identification receiver. In the ’303 application and ’838 provisional, only the UAV (which is part of the discrimination system, and thus not “remote”) actually transmits identifiers to the identification receiver. Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that an “aerial system identifier can be generated on-board the aerial system” or “generated remotely . . . at a remote computing system.” Mot. 7 (citing Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45). But even if a UAV’s identifier was at some time in the past generated by a remote computing system, the subsequent transmission of that identifier from the UAV to the identification receiver would not satisfy the plain language of limitation [10.d]. The claim language “receive … a second identifier from a computing system that is remote to the discrimination system” requires the receipt of a transmission of the second identifier from a remote computing system. This claim language limits the source of the received transmission (i.e., where the particular transmission is “receive[d] … from”). Thus, the relevant issue is from where was the recited second identifier received. The relevant is not where the second identifier was originally generated.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed
“We determine that the disputed language in limitation [10.d] is not indefinite. There is no recitation in proposed substitute claim 10 that the second identifier is transmitted solely from the identifier transmission system. Thus, the alleged irreconcilable contradiction cited by Petitioner is not recited in the claims. Petitioner’s position appears to rest on the fact that the ’303 application and ’838 provisional do not disclose receiving the second identifier from a remote computing system. See Sur-reply 6 (“To manufacture written description support, [Patent Owner] argues the claim encompasses identifiers routed ‘through the UAV.’”). Though we agree that limitation [10.d] lacks adequate written description support, this defect does not render the claim indefinite because the scope of limitation [10.d] is otherwise reasonably certain based on its plain language. See supra § III.C.4.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for patent owner
“In contrast, the ’393 provisional never discloses that the described drone defense system may use the identity of a detected drone to develop a particular countermeasure. The disclosed RTSS certainly uses identity information to determine whether a drone is a threat. And if a threat is identified, the RTSS immediately starts “a series of processes … to determine what rule of engagement will be applied on the intruding drone.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. The ’393 provisional discloses that the system may select a particular countermeasure based on (i) the particular zone within a protected area within which a drone is located, (ii) “the behavior of the hostile drone,” or (iii) “other instructions.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. But the ’393 provisional never discloses that these “other instructions” may include the identity of the drone. The system disclosed in the ’393 provisional uses the identity of a drone to determine whether to activate the countermeasure system. See id. ¶¶ 16–18. But there is no disclosure in the ’393 provisional that the countermeasure system, once activated, uses the identity of the drone to develop the particular countermeasure to be employed. See generally Ex. 1006. Thus, though the Whitmarsh reference itself contains ample written description support for limitation [19e], the earlier-filed ’393 provisional does not. On this record, and having reviewed the ’393 provisional in its entirety, we determine that the ’393 provisional does not “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of” the subject matter of limitation [19e] of Whitmarsh’s claim 19 “as of the filing date” of the ’393 provisional. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 27
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,249,199 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00525 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Original claim 21 was canceled; the Board denied substitute claim 22 for new matter and held it obvious under §103 based on six combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“First, Patent Owner has not shown possession of the disputed feature of a “radio communication module [that] is configured to utilize a secure identifier, the secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” In the ’406 application, the term “excitation” is used exclusively to refer to a light beam signal. See Ex. 2015, 7:8–13, 9:8–10, 23:9.2 The ’406 application discloses that an identification box on an aircraft may include both an RF module and a separate light sensor. See Ex. 2015, 7:3–11. But nowhere does the ’406 application describe receiving a light beam (e.g., an excitation) with the RF module of the identification box (as opposed to the light sensor), so as to provide support for proposed substitute claim 22’s recitation of a “radio communication module” configured to utilize “a secure identifier . . . comprising a specified excitation.” We disagree with Patent Owner that it suffices that one of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that these disclosures are equally applicable to the RF-only embodiments” (Reply 5). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement . . . that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). On this record, and having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a radio communications module “configured to utilize a secure identifier” where “the secure identifier compris[es] a specified excitation.” Second, setting aside the “radio communication module” in proposed substitute claim 22, Patent Owner also has not shown that the named inventor was in possession of the feature of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.” Patent Owner’s argument that the ’406 application describes a light beam directed to a particular aircraft (see Reply 4–5) is 2 The same is true of the ’153 provisional. See Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 29, 34. unavailing. The fact that the properties of a particular light beam indicate that the light beam is intended for a particular aircraft does not demonstrate that the light beam is a “secure identifier,” as we have construed that term. Patent Owner has not identified any disclosure in the ’406 application of a “secure identifier” comprising a light beam, let alone that such light beam can be utilized by a “radio communication module.” The only references to “secure” identifiers in the ’406 application describe radio frequency signals. See Ex. 2015, 2:4–6, 15:21–17:12.3 Having reviewed the ’959 Patent, the ’153 provisional, and the ’406 application, we find no evidence in those documents that the named inventor was in possession of the concept of a “secure identifier comprising a specified excitation.”” slip op. at 15
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“not impermissibly broaden the scope of the claims of the ’959 Patent. As Patent Owner suggests, there were no limitations in original claim 21 on the type of radio signal the radio communication module could receive, and so it follows that proposed substitute claim 22 does not now encompass receiving a broader set of radio signals. We see no basis for Petitioner’s argument that the past tense verb “received” limited original claim 21 to “signals of a compatible ‘type’ and ‘range.’” Opp. 7. Moreover, the claim language (with the proposed deletion shown double brackets) provides that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a [[received]] radio signal.” Any radio signal that the radio communications module receives would necessarily be a “received” radio signal. Thus, deleting the redundant word “received” does not enlarge the scope of this claim limitation. We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s suggestion that removing the term “received” broadens original claim 21 by deleting a requirement that the radio signal have already been previously received by the claimed device. See Sur-reply 9. Original claim 21 simply recited, using redundant language, that “the radio communication module is configured to receive a received radio signal.” Ex. 1001, 18:5–7. The most natural reading of this language is that the phrase “received radio signal” is just a description of a radio signal that is received by the recited radio communications module. Petitioner has cited no persuasive evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have counterintuitively interpreted this language to impose an additional requirement that the “received radio signal” must have been received twice—a first time by some other component of the device, and a second time by the recited radio communication module. Accordingly, we determine that the proposed amendment does not improperly broaden claim scope.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“572 U.S. 898 (2014). See Memorandum: Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021).4 Under Nautilus, a claim is indefinite if fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” 572 U.S. at 910. We agree with Patent Owner that neither of the identified terms are indefinite. Regarding the term “low-altitude aircraft,” we determine the Specification provides a sufficient basis for understanding the scope and meaning of this term with reasonable certainty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit has explained that, when a term of degree is recited in a claim, it is necessary “to determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.” See Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claimed invention.”). Here, the Specification describes the related art as including “small UASs (e.g., aircrafts up to 25 pounds flying up to 500 ft of the low altitude airspace).” Ex. 1001, 1:50–52. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the Specification that the cited disclosure provides an objective standard for determining the scope of a low-altitude aircraft as one that is designed to fly up to a maximum altitude of about 500 feet.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the following qualifications: [E]ither (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the aerospace, avionics, telecommunications, or electronic device manufacturing industry, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in any of the above industries. Paper 13, 5 (citing Pet. 21). Patent Owner has not disputed this formulation; thus, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Paper 13, 10–11 n. 8.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,713,959 - PTAB · Jun 26, 2025 · IPR2024-00294 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable; proposed substitute claims 21–24 are also unpatentable, so the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“appear to be that Patent Owner specifies that the POSA’s knowledge and experience may include optical sensors and that the POSA may have a degree emphasizing software. We do not deem these differences material, particularly because the optical sensors and technologies at issue are those used in physiological monitoring technologies and both parties agree that the POSA would have a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24; PO Resp. 11. We find the additional specificity of Patent Owner’s definition to be helpful. In addition, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’507 patent. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art. (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We note that we would reach the same outcome under either definition of the POSA. Cf., PO Resp. 12 (asserting that Petitioner’s proposed definition is “flawed” but also asserting that “patentability is confirmed” “[r]egardless of the level of skill”).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1007, 1528. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether D’Angelo was made available to attendees of the IEEE EMBS conference identified in this header and, if so, what effect that has.16 Accordingly, we begin our analysis by considering the conference.” slip op. at 42
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“understood Mendelson to disclose averaging signals. We do not find in Mendelson any discussion of summing or averaging signals. See generally Ex. 1011, 912–915. Our inability to find a teaching of averaging in Mendelson is consistent with the testimony of Drs. Kenny and Duckworth. Dr. Kenny testifies that “there is simply no disclosure in Mendelson itself of any summing or averaging of collected signals.” Ex. 1083 ¶ 23. And in his deposition, Dr. Duckworth was unable to identify any express disclosure of averaging in Mendelson. See Ex. 1087, 103:9–114:11 (confirming that certain aspects of his declaration testimony relating to averaging of signals are not discussed in Mendelson). Accordingly, Mendelson, standing alone, does not support that the POSA would have understood Mendelson’s Sensor Module to have output averaged signals” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“the PDA to read out ‘data that’s been stored’ (i.e., previously measured physiological data) even after the Receiver Module’s battery had died” because Mendelson’s Receiver Module lacks “a microSD card or other nonvolatile storage from which measured data could be ‘read out’ after its battery has died.” PO Resp. 37; see also Ex. 2037 ¶ 147 (testimony of Dr. Duckworth confirming that Mendelson’s system could not store data that could be read out after its battery died). Accordingly, Patent Owner argues the POSA “would not have been motivated to modify Mendelson’s Receiver Module to draw power from the PDA as proposed because doing so would not allow the PDA to ‘read out’ the previously ‘measured physiological data’ after the Receiver Module’s battery died.” PO Resp. 39.” slip op. at 60
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,736,507 - PTAB · Aug 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00658 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled original claim 1, denied the proposed substitute claim as indefinite under § 112, and did not reach the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We have, on the complete record now before us, mainly the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Hatch, who testifies that the designer of ordinary skill in the art would be a person who has a bachelor’s degree in furniture design or an equivalent field or alternatively two years of practical experience designing furniture . . . [which] is appropriate given the relatively simple nature of the design at issue, which involves little more than two boards forming a tabletop. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–35. Based on the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of a designer of ordinary skill as it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Hatch. Id. ¶¶ 33–38. We also note that, based on the complete trial record, our” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In contrast, Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Williams, testifies based on his “experience[,] that tenons are generally included in the larger portion of two table top portions.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 55. However, Mr. Williams’ experience does not explain why an ordinary observer would understand such functional and ornamental characteristics of tenon and hole arrangements. Id. Nor does this testimony proclaim that tenons must be in the larger of two table top potions. Indeed, even considering an ordinary observer imbued with Mr. Williams’ level of expertise and experience, and understanding for instance that it may be more likely that the wider portion includes tenons, this does not resolve the glaring inconsistency that Figure 1 illustrates holes and Figure 8 illustrates tenons. In other words, Mr. Williams’ “experience” does not resolve the visible tension that, on one hand, Figure 1 illustrates holes as part of the claimed ornamental design in the wider portion of the table top, and on the other hand, Figure 8 illustrates tenons as part of the same wider portion of the table top. The problem here may be more eloquently explained as “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood[,] And sorry I could not travel both.” Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken, The Poetry of Robert Frost—The Collected Poems, 105, Henry Holt and Co. (1969). Considering the entire record before us in this case we credit Mr. Hatch’s testimony. The issue is not, as Patent Owner has framed it, whether “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the tenons and holes should be positioned on each of the table top portions.” Reply Opp. 7. The question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art viewing the design for a table top in the proposed substitute claim as would an ordinary observer, understand whether or not the wider portion of the table top as Figures 1 and 6, holes. As Mr. Hatch persuasively explains, in the proposed substitute claim a majority of the drawings for the wider portion, i.e., Figures 1–6, omit the tenons added in Figure 8. Ex. 1011 ¶ 37 (Mr. Hatch testifying that “Figure 8 is the only amended figure that adds tenons/dowels.”) Indeed, Figures 1 and 6 not only fail to illustrate tenons, but actually are amended to include holes rather than tenons, as described in the Motion to Amend. See, e.g., Motion to Amend 6 (Patent Owner describing, “Figure 1: Removal of disclaimer of a total of four holes by amending the outline of the four holes from broken lines to solid lines.”). On the complete record in this proceeding, we determine that a” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“On the complete record in this proceeding, we determine that a designer of skill in the art considering the claim from either their own, or the perspective of an ordinary observer, would be uncertain whether the wider portion of the claimed table top depicted in Figures 1–8 includes tenons, or holes. It is reasonable that anyone observing two distinct ornamental designs for the same wider portion of the table top would be unclear as to the claimed ornamental design where holes are shown in one figure but tenons are shown in another figure illustrating the same wider portion of the table top. Observing as a whole, the figures illustrating the table top in the proposed substitute claim, the question remains, does the wider portion of the table top include tenons, or holes? See Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376 (“Ultimately, a patent is indefinite for § 112 purposes whenever its claim, read in light of the visual disclosure (whether it be a single drawing or multiple drawings), ‘fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.’”) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014)). proposed substitute claim fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. Thus, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed substitute claim is indefinite and we accordingly deny Patent Owner’s Noncontingent Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 29
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Federal Circuit recently explained that “a design patent is indefinite under § 112 if one skilled in the art, viewing the design as would an ordinary observer, would not understand the scope of the design with reasonable certainty based on the claim and visual disclosure.” In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Maatita, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding of indefiniteness of a design for a shoe bottom, i.e., a shoe sole, finding that Maatita’s two-dimensional drawing clearly demonstrates the perspective from which the shoe bottom should be viewed. A potential infringer is not left in doubt as to how to determine infringement. In this case, Maatita’s decision not to disclose all possible depth choices would not preclude an ordinary observer from understanding the claimed design, since the design is capable of being understood from the two-dimensional, plan- or planar-view perspective [] shown in the drawing. Id. at F.3d 1378–79. Different from Maatita, the issue in this proceeding is not whether an ordinary observer would sufficiently understand a three-dimensional ornamental design from a two-dimensional figure, but whether inconsistencies between figures of the proposed substitute claim render the scope of the claimed table top uncertain. See Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376 (The Federal Circuit specifically distinguishing Maatita’s single two-dimensional drawing from indefiniteness issues raised by inconsistent drawings: “[h]ere, we are not dealing with inconsistencies in the drawings, or inconsistencies between the drawings and the verbal description, but” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus - PTAB · Apr 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00074 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Original claims 1–13 were canceled by amendment; proposed substitute claims 14–26 were denied because “high pressure” is indefinite under § 112.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“original claims 1–13 of the ’732 patent, which are all of the claims challenged in the Petition. See Mot. Caption (“NON-CONTINGENT”), 1 (stating the motion is “Non-Contingent”), 2 (“The claim listing cancels original claims 1–13 . . . .”); Mot. App. A, 1 (stating original claims 1–13 are “Cancelled”); Pet. 17. Petitioner does not oppose this portion of the Motion to Amend. See generally Mot. Opp. Therefore, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original claims 1–13. As a result, we do not reach the unpatentability grounds asserted in the Petition against these original claims.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“b) Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’732 patent would have either: “(1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production”; or “(2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner utilizes the same formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 13. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. The parties’ agreed-upon formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’732 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“witnesses cannot agree on a numerical definition of “high pressure.” Mr. Marscher says high pressure is between 5,000 psi and 15,000 psi (see Ex. 1030, 111:1–112:3), whereas Mr. Schaaf says high pressure is between 8,000 psi and 12,000 psi and specifically disagrees with Mr. Marscher’s testimony that high pressure can be below 8,000 psi (see Ex. 1031, 43:6–44:13). Although there are overlapping values in the witness testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the testimony does not evidence clear boundaries for how an ordinarily skilled artisan would interpret “high pressure.” See Mot. Sur-reply 6 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901–02 (2014); Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1371). Thus, the testimony of Patent Owner’s own witnesses is contrary to Patent Owner’s position that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the meaning of “high pressure.” Furthermore, neither Mr. Marscher nor Mr. Schaaf cites any objective evidence to support their respective notions of what “high pressure” might be, in the context of hydraulic fracturing. For example, neither witness cites to any published industry standards to support their respective opinions. This lack of objective evidentiary support weakens the persuasiveness of both witness’s testimony on this issue, especially because their opinions conflict with each other. We are instead persuaded by the testimony of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Durham, who testifies that “[t]here is [no] general consensus about the precise boundaries of the term ‘high pressure,’ and different engineers can reasonably come to different conclusions as to the meaning of the term absent further guideposts.” Ex. 1036 ¶ 17; see also id. ¶ 19 (“There is no universally accepted definition of ‘high pressure.’”). Dr. Durham further testifies that “what might be sufficiently ‘high’ pressure for one fracturing application and according to one [person of ordinary skill in the art] may be not ‘high’ enough in another fracturing application and to another [such person].” Id. ¶ 18; see also id. ¶ 19 (“Merely stating that a pump fractures a formation says little to nothing about whether that pump should be deemed ‘high pressure’ or ‘not high pressure.’”).” slip op. at 30
- BurdenUnpatentable
“The intrinsic record does not “provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art” to determine whether a given pressure is “high pressure” as recited in the proposed substitute claims. See Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d at 1370–71. Nor does the intrinsic record provide guidance to clarify the meaning of “high pressure.” As noted above, the ’732 patent refers only to “high pressure” without qualification or explanation as to how “high pressure” is determined. The prosecution history does not address “high pressure” in any meaningful way and, therefore, also fails to explain what pressures are “high” pressures. See generally Ex. 1003. Thus, the intrinsic record does not explain adequately what pressure(s) qualify as “high pressure,” nor differentiate “high pressure” from other pressures at which hydraulic fracturing can be performed.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,254,732 - PTAB · Mar 2, 2023 · IPR2021-01483 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable; the revised motion to amend and both parties’ motions to exclude are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner offers an assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of” slip op. at 10
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“to . . . introduce new subject matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(2)(ii); Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 6–7. Accordingly, “the Board requires that a motion to amend set forth written description support in the originally filed disclosure of the subject patent for each proposed substitute claim, and also set forth support in an earlier filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(1)–(2)). For this requirement, Patent Owner must cite “to the original disclosure of the application, as filed, rather than to the patent as issued.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 56
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“insufficiency in its showing that these documents are prior art is a legal determination to be made by the Board, and is not proper for a motion to exclude. Pet. Opp. PO Mot. Excl. 4 (citing Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc., CBM2014-00114, Paper 35, at 52 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2015) (“a motion to exclude is not the proper vehicle to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence used to demonstrate that [an item] qualifies as a prior art printed publication . . .. Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication . . . is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations” and thus “the issue of whether there is sufficient evidence in the record . . . should be presented in the patent owner response—not a motion to exclude”).” slip op. at 64
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“claims 11, 17, and 18. Resp. 10 n. 2. We determine that Petitioner has shown the limitations of claims 11, 17, and 18 to be taught by the abovementioned portions of Chang and Geeks, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 17, and 18 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,848,295 - PTAB · Jan 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01036 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of original claims 1–13, denied substitute claims 14–19 and 21 for new matter, and denied claims 20 and 22–26 as unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“V. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS We grant Patent Owner’s non-contingent request to cancel original claims 1–13 of the ’728 patent, and we deny Patent Owner’s request to add proposed substitute claims 14–26 to the ’728 patent.16 Thus, the result of this Decision is summarized by the following table. Motion to Amend Outcome Claim(s) Original Claims Canceled by Amendment 1–13 Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 14–26 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 14–26 Substitute Claims: Not Reached VI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is granted as to the non-contingent request to cancel original claims 1–13 of the ’728 patent; 16 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this Decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg. 16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2). FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’728 patent would have either: (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering or an equivalent field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production; or (2) at least four years of industry experience in the oil and gas industry, including well drilling, completion, or production. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Mot. 12–13. Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’728 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply it in the present Decision. 3.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We see no evidence of improper hindsight. The Robinson/Broussard/ Henry combination does not disclose the claimed load box. Morris discloses mobile source of electricity 103 to supply electric power to fracturing equipment within mobile fracturing system 103 that includes at least one switchgear transport 112, a plurality of drive transports 104, at least one auxiliary power transport 106, at least one blender transport 110, at least one data van 114 and a plurality of fracturing pump transports 108 that deliver fracturing fluid through wellhead 101 to subsurface geological formations. Ex. 1037 ¶ 43. Morris discloses that “switch gear transport 112 may comprise a plurality of electrical disconnect switches, fuses, transformers, and/or circuit protectors to protect the fracturing equipment.” Id. Dr. Ehsani, Petitioner’s expert, testifies that “the switchgear (with switches, fuses, and circuit protectors) described in Morris is one example of a ‘load box’” comparing it to the ’728 patent’s disclosure that “tie ins for devices that operate at the stepped down voltage” are exemplary load boxes. Ex. 1041 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:50–52). Dr. Ehsani further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that lube oil heaters would be part of the fracturing pump transport or the additional auxiliary equipment to which power would be directed from switchgear.” Id. We credit Dr. Ehsani’s unrebutted testimony, which is supported by Morris’ disclosures discussed above. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 20 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Robinson, Broussard, Henry, and Morris.” slip op. at 35
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,611,728 - PTAB · Jun 30, 2022 · IPR2021-00361 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 14, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Dukach and obvious over Dukach, alone or with Dunsmuir.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention of the ’613 patent, “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and two years of work experience in operating systems, file systems, networks, and/or client-server applications, though additional education or work experience can make up for more or less formal education.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition of the skilled artisan, and does not dispute Petitioner’s definition thereof. See generally PO Resp.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“skilled artisan to have its “ordinary and customary meaning[],” allegedly “a stream of data bytes that can be read and written (among other common operations).” PO Resp. 3. But as noted by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 3–4), the only intrinsic evidence cited by Patent Owner does not support its proposed construction in the context of the ’613 patent; rather, such evidence favors Petitioner. See PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:35–45 (a “‘file is accessed via the file descriptor’”), 2:46–3:7 (“‘the system calls that access files via file descriptors do not distinguish between a file on media and a communication channel’”)); see also PO Resp. 7 (“It is undisputed that file descriptors were conventionally ‘associated with’ files stored on media, communication channels, and even hardware devices.” (emphasis added)). Patent Owner also cites extrinsic evidence, namely, Dunsmuir (Ex. 1007), to support its proposed construction: “Conceptually, a file consists of a stream of data bytes followed by a logical end-of-file. … Because UNIX file I/O is performed through a uniform file interface, a program that can read and write files can read and write anything.” PO Resp. 4 (quoting Ex. 1007, 22). But as noted by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 4–6), Patent Owner does not explain why this “conceptual” meaning set forth in the generic context of programming interfaces in a UNIX operating system would apply in the specific context of the ’613 patent. See Pet. Reply 4 (“[Patent Owner’s] proposed construction is problematic because it is inconsistent with the specification of the ’613 patent.”). Patent Owner also does not explain what “among other common operations” means in the context of its own proposed construction. For the foregoing reasons, and those discussed below, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “file.” First, the claims of the ’613 patent support Petitioner’s proposed construction. For example, claim 1 recites that a “file” is accessed via a file descriptor. Ex. 1001, 14:55. Claim 5 recites a file descriptor being associated with “a communication channel” and determining with what file type the file descriptor is associated. Ex. 1001, 15:44–57. Together, these limitations show that a “file” is an entity assessed via a file descriptor, and such an entity includes, for example, a communication channel (i.e., per these claims, a communication channel is a type of file associated with a file descriptor). We find nothing in the claims, and Patent Owner does not direct us to anything in the claims, that supports limiting the term “file” only to a “stream of data bytes that can be read and written.”” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“in the abstract, discloses the claimed “indicator,” but rather the inclusion (or storage or presence) of that number in a list of monitored file descriptors discloses such a stored “indicator.” See, e.g., Pet. 49 (“[The skilled artisan] would have understood that, before the listen( ) call or the accept( ) call attempts to access a file using a file descriptor, it examines the file descriptor to determine if it is on the list of monitored file descriptors—the ‘indicators’ of a file type associated with the control pipe for services to be performed by the front end server.” (emphasis added)); Pet. 37–38 (“Dukach utilizes the presence or absence of a file descriptor’s number stored in a list of monitored file descriptors to indicate the file type associated with the file descriptor, which is how the ’613 patent describes indicating a file type by the indicator’s presence or absence in an indicator table.”); see also Pet. Reply 13 (“Petitioner contended in the Petition and maintains that it is the presence of a file descriptor’s number on the list of monitored file descriptors, not the file descriptor’s number itself, that teaches the claimed indicator.” (bold omitted)); cf. PO Resp. 9 (“[A]n ‘indicator’ . . . must reflect . . . an indication that such file descriptor is associated with a communication channel.”). Patent Owner also variously argues “Dukach does not disclose or” slip op. at 34
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we credited the foregoing and related testimony of Dr. Greenspun (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96–98), and noted that Patent Owner at that stage of the proceeding had not offered any evidence to rebut Dr. Greenspun’s testimony. Dec. 30–31. Despite that, as highlighted by Petitioner, Patent Owner still offers no evidence to rebut Dr. Greenspun’s testimony in this regard. See Pet. Reply 16 (“But in arguing all these [above arguments], [Petitioner] presents no rebuttal evidence—neither a deposition testimony of Dr. Greenspun, nor a rebuttal testimony by its own expert, nor any other evidence.”); see generally PO Resp. Instead, Patent Owner merely declares Dr. Greenspun’s testimony “conclusory” and tainted by “vague leap[s]” (see, e.g., PO Resp. 14), but yet makes such accusations against a technical declarant with nothing but attorney-argument. Regardless, for the same reasons given by Petitioner (see Pet. Reply 16–18), we disagree with Patent Owner and continue to credit Dr. Greenspun’s technical testimony as to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 16–18 (Petitioner explaining why “[Patent Owner’s] attorney argument is wrong”.). As noted above, Patent Owner variously argues Dukach does not disclose “storing” of the indicator at issue in this limitation. See generally PO Resp. 7–17. To summarize, we disagree with Patent Owner, and as explained above, are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence, including the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Greenspun, that Dukach discloses storing information that points to a file type associated with a file descriptor. First, we are persuaded that, in Dukach, the presence or absence of a file descriptor’s number in the list of monitored file descriptors constitutes information that points to a file type associated with the file descriptor. See Pet. 37–40 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, 11:5–40; Ex. 1002 ¶ 96; Ex. 1001, 11:12–42). Second, we also are persuaded that, in Dukach, the list of monitored file descriptors “needs to be maintained in memory such that it can be used by software to check an at-issue file descriptor’s presence or absence in the list,” which constitutes storing the indicator. Pet. Reply 16– 17 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 97); see Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97). Finally, even if Patent Owner were correct that Dukach does not disclose a particular embodiment in the ’613 patent (see, e.g., PO Resp. 15 (discussing an embodiment “only applicable for binary file types”)), the issue before us is not whether Dukach indeed discloses such an embodiment, but rather whether Dukach discloses the invention recited, for example, in claim 1, given the breadth (scope) of the limitations defining that invention.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,560,613 - PTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01062 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted cancellation of claims 1–15, 19–20, and 22–24; allowed substitute claims 26–29, 31–38, and 40–44; and denied substitute claims 30 and 39 for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; see Pet. 10. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Mr. Fischer’s definition for purposes of that decision. Institution Decision (Paper 7) 9–10. Patent Owner states that it “accepts that definition for the purposes of this proceeding.” Rev’d MTA 24. Mr. Fischer’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Mr. Fischer’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for “code” and “Electronic Product Code (EPC).” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 6. Patent Owner asserts that “the limitations of the substitute claims do not require construction and should, instead, be construed in accordance with their ordinary meaning.” Rev’d MTA 24. According to Patent Owner, the addition of certain features of the proposed substitute claims renders moot Petitioner’s arguments concerning the meaning of the term “code.” Id. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the content of the recited codes— an EPC and a code different from the EPC—constitutes “printed matter” (non-functional descriptive material) and, therefore, are not entitled to patentable weight. Opp. to Rev’d MTA 7–10; Pet. Sur-reply 5–6. We need not reach this issue. Even if we construed the specifically recited codes as being non-functional descriptive material, Petitioner, for reasons discussed below, has not shown that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable. Also, the parties do not identify any other issue in this case that turns on whether the two recited codes are non-functional descriptive material. See, e.g., Opp. to Rev’d MTA 11–12 (Petitioner arguing that the relied-on prior art discloses codes in the form of an EPC and a TID (i.e. a code other than the EPC)). On this record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“A patent claim is indefinite when that claim, “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, [does not] inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. BioSig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014).” slip op. at 12
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“Motion to Amend, that “[c]onstruing ‘a first and second memory bank’ to mean, for example, two memories instead of ‘a memory’ also impermissibly broadens the claims.” Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (citing Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 3024– 3027); see also Pet. Sur-reply 1–2 (“the scope of the proposed claims is impermissibly broadened to encompass logical memory banks storing codes in more than one memory.”); Tr. 7:12–13 (“That’s improper because it enlarges the scope of claims to include two memories instead of just one.”). Petitioner’s argument appears to assume that the proposed substitute claims require two memories (as opposed to the recited “memory bank[s]”) and that, because two memories are quantitatively more than one memory, the claims have been broadened. We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. The arguments are contingent upon a construction of two memory banks being the same scope as two memories. See Opp. to Rev’d MTA 4 n.1 (“Construing . . . impermissibly broadens the claims.”). Petitioner has not offered any persuasive argument or evidence that the two different terms—“memory” and “memory bank” are coextensive or that the more general term “memory” can encompass two of the more specific “memory bank[s].” Further, even if the proposed substitute claims required two memories rather than two memory banks, adding the requirement of a second memory (or, as written in the proposed claims, two memory banks rather than “a memory” as in the issued claim) is further limiting the claims and, therefore, is not broadening the scope. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 183 F.3d at 1374. We agree with Patent Owner that the amended language regarding two memory banks does not impermissibly broaden the scope relative to the original claims.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,134,451 - PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Turning now to obviousness, Petitioner identified disclosure within Kurgonov-262 and Chakrabarti which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–21. Furthermore, Petitioner identified multiple reasons that would have prompted the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Because Patent Owner focused its arguments solely on the issue of whether Kurganov-262 is prior art, Petitioner’s assertions regarding the substantive teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti remain unrebutted on the complete record. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. Patent Owner likewise failed to substantively address Petitioner’s proffered reasons why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. We have reviewed the disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti relied on by Petitioner, as well as the explanations provided by Mr. Lipoff, and are persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 11–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1008. Petitioner also persuades us that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Chakrabarti’s techniques for web crawling to Kurganov-262’s system, and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so, thus arriving at the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent. Pet. 21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–114. Therefore, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as having “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the skilled artisan. See generally, PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Thus, on the complete record, we accept Petitioner’s assessment of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. C. Asserted Obviousness based on Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Rather, on the complete record, Patent Owner makes inadequately supported assertions regarding what the skilled artisan “would understand” based on the ʼ084 patent’s disclosure. See PO Resp. 33–34. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would understand that” polling or pinging “describes a process where by existing and new devices and/or websites are discovered,” and that “‘polling’ includes asking for information from a website, including a listing of URLs or asking a website of a search engine to provide new website information.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶¶ 154–155). We reject this line of argument because we afford minimal weight to Patent Owner’s reliance on paragraphs 153–155 of Exhibit 2059. PO Resp. 33–34. These declaration paragraphs provide little detail beyond what is argued in the Patent Owner Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that sufficient written description support does not exist in the ʼ996 application for “limitation 1.i” which requires the computing device to be “configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites.” Pet. 6–11. Thus, we determine that Kurganov-262 is available as prior art against the challenged claims. On the complete record, Patent Owner fails to direct us to specific disclosure within the ʼ996 application that evinces written description for limitation 1.i. Rather, Patent Owner’s citations to the ʼ084 patent fail to describe with adequate precision a computing device configured to periodically search the network(s) to identify new web sites and add such new web sites to the plurality of web sites that are accessed. See PO Resp. 31–34.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,451,084
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.