• Juniper Networks, Inc. / Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2017 · IPR2016-01397 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 39, 40, 47, 55, and 69 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner indicates that the only difference between the parties’ respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art is that Petitioner uses the phrase “at least.” PO Resp. 10. According to Patent Owner, the phrase “at least” is “too open ended” and “would result in an expert, who has a Ph.D. and 15 years of experience, being considered an ordinary artisan.” Id. Patent Owner, however, does not identify any specific instance in which the difference between the parties’ respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. See id. Our findings and conclusions in this case would be the same under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent necessary, though, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which is supported by the declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti. Id.; Ex. 2038 ¶ 26. As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a B.S. degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering or computer science and three years of experience in the design of network communications products, and would have been familiar with data communications protocols, data communications standards (and standards under development at the time, including the 802.3 standard), and the behavior of data communications products available on the market.” slip op. at 6

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “second pairs of contacts used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals.” Ex. 1001, 17:14–16. In a decision on institution in IPR2016- 01391, we construed the term “BaseT” in a related patent to mean “twisted pair Ethernet in accordance with the 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T standards.” Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., Case IPR2016-01391, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2016) (Paper 9). Our construction is consistent with Petitioner’s proposal that the term “BaseT” be construed to mean “10BASE-T and 100BASE-T.” Pet. 5. Our construction also is consistent with the construction adopted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a related case. Ex. 2021, 18. Further, Patent Owner “does not contest” our construction. PO Resp. 12. We note that our findings and conclusions in this case are not dependent on a particular construction of the term “BaseT.” Nonetheless, because neither party disputes our prior construction of that term, we adopt it in this case. Specifically, we construe the term “BaseT” in claim 1 to mean “twisted pair Ethernet in accordance with the 10Base-T or 100Base-T standards.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is not the broadest reasonable interpretation. First, Patent Owner does not direct us to any intrinsic evidence to support its proposed construction, but instead relies on a single piece of extrinsic evidence. PO Resp. 12–13. Specifically, Patent Owner cites to a document that discusses the term “protocol” in the context of explaining how “networks that make up the Internet” communicate with one another. Ex. 2047, 1. That, however, is not the context in which the term “protocol” is used in the ’838 patent. For example, the ’838 patent relates to tracking electronic equipment in an Ethernet network. Ex. 1001, 1:27–30, 17:13–23. As a result, we are not persuaded that the extrinsic evidence cited by Patent Owner establishes the meaning of the term “protocol” in the context of the ’838 patent. Second, Patent Owner’s proposed construction addresses the term “protocol” in isolation from the remainder of the claim language. By limiting the term “protocol” to a mutually agreed upon method of communication, Patent Owner’s proposed construction appears to require a communication protocol. Claim 2, though, recites a detection protocol, not a communication protocol. Id. at 17:24–26. Claim 2 further specifies that the detection protocol is based on different magnitudes of DC current flow detected by the central piece of network equipment via Ethernet contacts. Id. at 17:13–26. Patent Owner does not explain specifically why the central piece of network equipment must mutually agree upon a method of communication with other network equipment in order to detect different magnitudes of DC current flow. See PO Resp. 12–13; Pet. Reply 26–27. Third, the specification of the ’838 patent indicates that the detection protocol does not require a mutually agreed upon method of communication. For example, the ’838 patent describes one embodiment as follows: The existence of a connection between hub 1 and central module 15a is monitored by test voltage source 64 and test voltage monitor 66 through a pair of receive data lines. Current from test voltage source 64 flows through a data line to an isolation transformer within hub 1. The current flows through the primary winding of the isolation transformer and returns on the other receive data line to the test voltage monitor 66. An interruption in the flow of current is detected by the test voltage monitor 66. . . . Similarly, current sourced onto a transmit line from signal modulator 7 and isolation power supply 8 through remote module 16a to the isolation transformer of PC 3A which returns on the other transmit line is monitored by test voltage monitor 84” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “phantom power circuit would have degraded the Ethernet data signal is not persuasive. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Madisetti, states that “[s]witching the resistor would create noise that would degrade the Ethernet data propagation and reduce bandwidth,” but does not otherwise explain or provide support for that statement. Ex. 2038 ¶ 86. In contrast, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crayford, explains that the resistor in Bloch would have produced low frequency signals, which would have been unlikely to interfere with the higher frequency data signals of an Ethernet network. Pet. Reply 11; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 49–51. Mr. Crayford also explains that even if the resistor in Bloch would have caused some interference with the Ethernet data signals, it would have been within the knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art to separate the low frequency resistor signals from the high frequency Ethernet data signals, such as by using a filter. Pet. Reply 11; Ex. 1046 ¶ 49; Ex. 2039, 172:20–173:3. Patent Owner’s argument that applying operating power to the transformers in Bloch would saturate the coils also is not persuasive. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on annotations that Petitioner added to Figure 1 of Bloch in the Petition. PO Resp. 27 (citing Pet. 44). Specifically, Petitioner added a red line to Figure 1 of Bloch to indicate the flow of DC current through the system, but, as Patent Owner points out, the red line only shows current flowing through one side of the transformer. Pet. 44; PO Resp. 27. Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crayford, clarified during his deposition that the annotations to Figure 1 were intended to illustrate the direction of current flow, and that, even if not shown expressly by the annotations, the current clearly flows through both sides of the transformer. Ex. 2039, 167:14–169:22. Specifically, Mr. Crayford stated that “I did not choose to highlight both of the pairs of the twisted pair which is the current path, but clearly they’re parallel connectors connected to the same transformers with the power and return path on the center tap,” so “they probably should be highlighted.” Id. at 167:23–168:4. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner does not propose applying operating power to just one side of the transformers in Bloch. Further, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that, even if operating power was applied to both sides of the transformer in Bloch, there would still be a saturation problem. Bloch teaches that the phantom power circuit “is connected to the two center taps of the transformers,” thereby indicating that applying operating power to the center taps of the transfomers would work. Ex. 1005, 3:9–23. Further, consistent with the teaching of Bloch, Mr. Crayford explained that the objective of balancing the coils on either side of the transformer is “very well known.” Ex. 2039, 169:14–22.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 9,019,838 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,019,838
• Apple Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 26, 2017 · IPR2017-01244 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–21 and 29–42 unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments. See id. An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “We discern no teaching or suggestion in this text of Salami that the preemphasized signal is used on a perceptual weighting filter. We find no support in the cited portions of Salami for Petitioner’s assertion that the preemphasized signal is first applied to LP analysis and then the same preemphasized signal is perceptually weighted (i.e., applied to a perceptually weighted filter). Petitioner’s argument in the Petition does not explain specifically how the cited text teaches the identified claim limitations and, thus, amounts to little more than an unsupported conclusory remark. Dr. Cohen merely repeats the same argument without providing any further explanation.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We discern no teaching or suggestion in this text of Salami that the preemphasized signal is used on a perceptual weighting filter. We find no support in the cited portions of Salami for Petitioner’s assertion that the preemphasized signal is first applied to LP analysis and then the same preemphasized signal is perceptually weighted (i.e., applied to a perceptually weighted filter). Petitioner’s argument in the Petition does not explain specifically how the cited text teaches the identified claim limitations and, thus, amounts to little more than an unsupported conclusory remark. Dr. Cohen merely repeats the same argument without providing any further explanation.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,807,524
• Hengdian Group Dmegc Magnetics Co., Ltd. / Zhejiang Innuovo Magnetics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hitachi Metals, Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2017-01313 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request and left in place its § 325(d) denial of institution for claims 1–8 because materially the same prior art had been considered by the Office.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Petitioner, as the party challenging the Decision, has the burden of showing it should be modified. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner states that, for purposes of its Request, it “do[es] not argue Uchida and Uchida II are not materially the same.” Req. Reh’g 3. Because we have discretion to reject a petition if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” see 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphasis added), Petitioner has not established that we abused our discretion in denying the Petition. Given that Uchida (asserted here) and Uchida II (previously presented to the Office) are “materially the same,” substantially the same prior art was previously before the Office. Indeed, the presence of Uchida in the Petition and the materially-identical Uchida II in the prosecution history alone is a sufficient basis to exercise our discretion under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 6,527,874
• Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster L.L.C.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2016-01435 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–12, and 17–21, 23 were not proven unpatentable over Kauffman and Iwaguchi, with Howard for claims 18 and 20, because the motivation to combine was insufficiently shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a “Bachelors of Science degree in Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering (or equivalent) or other Engineering major with a minor in Food Science and Technology and have had one or more years’ experience in the field of research and development of foods.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 74). Patent Owner does not propose an explicit level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Dr. Keener, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. Ex. 2032 ¶ 63. 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 adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “means for re-circulating” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the claim term “means for re-circulating” as a means-plus-function limitation, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Id. at 17–18. We construed the function as “re-circulating said cooking oil” and identified the corresponding structure as “a pump and structural equivalents thereof.” Id. at 18–19. Neither party contests our construction of the term, and we maintain that construction here for the same reasons. slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we need not expressly construe the term “adapter.” We reiterate the following from our Institution Decision: The term “adapter” appears in each claim of the ’691 patent. Neither party contends that the specification or prosecution history contains a lexicographic definition of the term, and neither party asserts that the specification or prosecution history contains a disclaimer of any portion of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. From our review of the record, the structure and location of the adapter recited in the claims is provided by other claim language describing that (1) the adapter is located external to the fryer, (2) the sensor is disposed in the adapter, (3) the adapter is installed between two portions of the return pipe or drain pipe, and (4) the adapter has two opposite ends wherein one of the two ends is connected to one of the two portions of either the return pipe or the drain pipe and the other end is connected to the other portion of pipe.3 Inst. Dec. 9–10. In light of the above discussion, and because the focus of the parties’ dispute is not on the meaning of the term “adapter,” we decline to expressly construe the term further.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify We instituted Petitioner’s challenge of these claims, and those that depend therefrom, based on Petitioner’s position that Kauffman disclosed most of the elements of the independent claims with the exception of a sensor capable of measuring an electrical property that is indicative of total polar materials. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 31. Thus, the theory of obviousness, as discussed above, relies upon substituting Iwaguchi’s sensor for Kauffman’s analyzer. See id. at 31 (“Petitioner provides a second argument that relies upon a modification to Kauffman’s system, in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is employed instead of Kauffman’s analyzer. Because Petitioner provides adequate support for this second position, we address Patent Owner’s arguments based on this proposed combination.”). Petitioner confirmed at the oral argument that its Petition proposed a theory in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is simply swapped for that of Kauffman’s and did not present a more general theory as to modifying Kauffman’s sensor per the teachings of Iwaguchi: JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Did you include both of those alternative theories in your petition or is that something that you’re – you’ve come up with now in the reply? MR. VAIDYA: It’s something that we -- again, in the reply, we wanted to make it very clear that we aren’t going on a 102 basis and we are -- and what -- I think what -- we did have that alternate in the reply, so the alternate -- and I can point to paragraphs if that helps. And so, the idea is again primarily we’re going with the idea of swapping sensors, but that it would be possible to modify the sensor in Kauffman. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Because in the petition, it was a swap of the sensors. MR. VAIDYA: That’s right. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: And that’s what we instituted -- MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- based on. MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. Tr. 13:21–14:12. We disregard Petitioner’s alternative position as it was an attempt to raise a new theory of unpatentability improperly for the first time in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,497,691 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,497,691
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01264 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhang and Ding, and over Zhang, Ding, and Sun.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claims 1 and 5 recite “therein,” not “throughout.” The term “therein” means “in there” (i.e., in the first film). That readily apparent meaning unmistakably was conveyed by the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 5–7 (rejecting Patent Owner’s attempt to read “therein” as “throughout.”). As further conveyed by our Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s attempt to incorporate “a mixture” into the limitation is another, unsupported, mechanism that would require nitrogen throughout. See id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “not adopted. First, Patent Owner proposes to substitute “non-crystalline” for “amorphous.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2003; Ex. 2008). Although both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence are probative that “amorphous” and “crystalline” are antonyms, the ’324 patent uses the term “amorphous” dozens of times and not once uses the term “non-crystalline.” Further, the meaning of the term “amorphous” is readily apparent in light of the specification; there is no need for extrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (Extrinsic evidence “is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is especially so here because the asserted prior art provides an in haec verba disclosure of the “amorphous” aspect of this limitation. See Ex. 1005, 3:39–41 (Ding teaching that the tantalum nitride (TaNx) layer is “amorphous”). In fact, Patent Owner’s proposed construction would not clarify what “amorphous” means; rather, it appears to be a vehicle by which Patent Owner would add a negative limitation prohibiting any portion of the second film being crystalline. See PO Resp. 16 (“As the specification and claims of the patent clearly distinguish between crystalline and amorphous materials and their different characteristics in a barrier film, a second film consisting essentially of amorphous metal nitride requires amorphous metal nitride throughout, and not merely a portion or portions of the film.”). Such a negative limitation is not part of the claim. Second, Patent Owner proposes to substitute “compound containing nitrogen” for “nitride.” Id. (citing Ex. 2004; Ex. 2009; Ex. 2011 ¶¶71–74). Although Patent Owner persuades us that a nitride is a compound containing nitrogen, there is no need to explicitly construe the limitation. The plain and ordinary meaning of “nitride” in light of the specification is readily apparent, and there can be no reasonable dispute in this inter partes review as to whether the “nitride” aspect of this limitation is taught by the asserted prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 6:64 (disclosing a “TaNx/Ta barrier layer structure”), 3:27 (designating “TaNx” as meaning “tantalum nitride”). Further, if we were to substitute the words “compound containing nitrogen” for “nitride,” we would introduce yet another transitional phrase— “containing”—into the claim. Doing so would obfuscate what the prior transitional phrase (i.e., “composed of,” which, at Patent Owner’s urging, we have construed to mean “consisting essentially of”) modifies.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the art. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶64). Patent Owner argues that such an individual would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶24). Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. 2. Disclosure of Zhang Zhang discloses a semiconductor device that includes a two-layered” slip op. at 16

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

    “To meet the limitations specifying that the first film is crystalline and the second film is amorphous, Petitioner cites Ding’s explicit teaching of a two-layered barrier film with a bottom layer being amorphous tantalum nitride and a top layer being crystalline tantalum. See, e.g., Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:39–41, 8:1–4). Petitioner argues that a combination of teachings from Zhang and Ding renders the claims obvious. See, e.g., Pet. 24–26, 30–34. In particular, Petitioner argues, with supporting testimony from Dr. Banerjee, that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to use crystalline and amorphous top and bottom films for the films 32 and 22 in Zhang’s barrier structure, in view of Ding, to achieve” certain advantages noted in the prior art. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶92–96). For example, Petitioner notes that Ding “discloses the desirability of using an amorphous TaNx layer as the bottom layer, so the TaNx is ‘sufficiently amorphous to prevent the diffusion of copper into underlying silicon or silicon oxide surfaces.’” Id. at 24 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:39–41 (Petitioner’s emphasis)). Similarly, Petitioner notes that Ding “also discloses the desirability of using a crystalline metal film ‘having a tantalum <002> crystalline orientation’ as a top film in the two-layer diffusion barrier because the crystalline orientation ‘enables easy wetting of the tantalum surface by the copper and 13 Petitioner’s claim 5 arguments largely—and, in all relevant aspects, exclusively—rely on its claim 1 arguments. See Pet. 44–46. Hereafter, we cite to only its claim 1 arguments. depositing of a copper layer having a high <111> crystal orientation.’” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1005, 8:1–4). Petitioner further argues that such a combination of teachings would have been obvious because it would have achieved these predictable results (i.e., an amorphous layer to prevent copper diffusion and a crystalline layer to promote copper adhesion) through known techniques. Id. at 32–34. Specifically, Petitioner notes that Zhang and Ding teach similar sputter-deposition processes for forming the top and bottom films. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:21–50; Ex. 1005, 6:63–7:29; Ex. 1003 ¶98); see also PO Resp. 46 (Patent Owner acknowledging that “Zhang and Ding disclose similar sputtering processes.”).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,538,324 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,538,324
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9 and proposed claims 11–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Ding and Zhang; proposed claim 13 is patentable and allowed by amendment.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “essentially of” for “being composed of.” PO Resp. 11 (citing AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239 F.3d 1239, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). In AFG, the Court noted that, “[i]n 1942, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals [had] stated that ‘“composed of” should be regarded as synonymous with “consisting of.”’” AFG, 239 F.3d at 1245 (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d 1014, 1019 (CCPA 1942)). However, as further explained in AFG, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals had “qualified this statement . . . by remarking that ‘the words “composed of” may under certain circumstances be given, in patent law, a broader meaning than “consisting of.”’” Id. (quoting In re Bertsch, 132 F.2d at 1020). The Court in AFG ultimately construed “composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of.” Id. (“[W]e do agree based on the specification and other evidence before us that the term ‘composed of’ in this case is not completely closed. Rather, we think that ‘composed of’ in this case should be interpreted in the same manner as ‘consisting essentially of.’”). Thus, “composed of” means either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of.” Id. The term “consisting of” prohibits any 4 <111> and <002> are indices that pertain to an orientation or direction of crystals. Ex. 1003 ¶51. unspecified components. Id. (citing PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The term “consisting essentially of” prohibits only unspecified components that materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of a claimed invention. Id. (citing Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). By arguing that “being composed of” means “consisting essentially of” as opposed to “consisting of,” Patent Owner argues for broader claim scope. For purposes of this Decision, we construe “being composed of” to mean “consisting essentially of,” as Patent Owner argues.5 In conclusion, we construe “first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 5, to mean “first film consisting essentially of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein.”6” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an equivalent of a Master of Science degree from an accredited institution in electrical engineering, materials science, or physics, or the equivalent, a working knowledge of semiconductor processing technologies for integrated circuits, and at least two years of experience in semiconductor processing analysis, design, and development.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶64). Patent Owner argues that such an individual would have had “at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Materials, Mechanical, or Chemical Engineering, or a related degree, and at least two years of experience working in semiconductor processing and fabrication, semiconductor equipment manufacturing, or semiconductor materials.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶24). Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 16

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

    “As to Petitioner’s predictable-results assertion, Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to the crystalline tantalum layer of Ding for three independent reasons. First, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would make it more easily removable by chemical mechanical polishing (“CMP”), which removal by polishing both Zhang and Ding teach to do. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34–37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63). Second, Petitioner argues that the presence of nitrogen in Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion. Id. at 26–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶144–146; Ex. 1023, 8). Third, Petitioner argues that adding a small amount of nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would reduce its resistivity, which was known to help reduce a device’s power consumption and RC delays. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶147; Ex. 1015, 81 (Table 1)). Patent Owner counters that none of these purportedly predictable results are realistic. PO Resp. 46–52. With respect to the first reason offered by Petitioner (to make the first film more susceptible to CMP), Patent Owner argues that: (A) adding only “[a] small amount of nitrogen” to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer would not change its CMP characteristics; and (B) “[a]dding significant amounts of nitrogen” would result in Ding’s previously crystalline layer becoming amorphous. Id. at 48. Patent Owner does not disclose what it considers “small” and “significant” amounts of nitrogen. Id. As a result, we cannot apply Patent Owner’s argument (even if it were persuasive) to the facts before us. Also, Patent Owner’s argument is based exclusively on declaration testimony that does not cite to any underlying evidence, let alone documentary evidence. See id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶190–98). In contrast, Petitioner’s argument is supported by declaration testimony, which, in turn, is based on underlying evidence, including documentary evidence. See Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶140, 142, 143; Ex. 1004, 1:30–34, 4:34– 37; Ex. 1005, 7:56–65; Ex. 1019, 12–13; Ex. 1021, 354–63); see also Ex. 1003 ¶139. With respect to the second reason offered by Petitioner (to inhibit, to some additional extent, copper diffusion), Patent Owner argues that, in Petitioner’s asserted combination, “there would be no nitrogen to provide any copper diffusion benefit.” PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on Zhang teaching exclusively an upper surface of pure tantalum. Id. But, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may have a nitrogen content of, for example, 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%. See Ex. 1004, 3:59–62 (“At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”). With respect to the third reason offered by Petitioner (to reduce resistivity), Patent Owner argues that adding nitrogen would actually increase resistivity. As pointed out by Petitioner, however, Patent Owner’s declarant, Harlan R. Harris, Ph.D., conceded that adding nitrogen does lower resistivity. Reply 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1036, 125:3–20). Dr. Harris testified as follows: Q. When the nitrogen flow ratio is zero in the ’324 patent, and the power is kept constant, wouldn’t that result in a film that could be pure tantalum? A. All three of those data points are at the exact same position on the graph. The N2 concentration, which is the numerator of the ratio, is set at zero. And in this particular position, the nitrogen concentration would be assumed to be zero in the film. Q. So is it within the scope of what’s taught in the ’324 patent to have a film that would have no nitrogen at all? A. It’s also apparent to anyone who is examining this of skill in the art that you can decrease from that number, which is favorable in terms of the value of resistivity by adding flow rate in the data points for all of the positions greater than zero. So you decrease resistivity by the addition of any amount of nitrogen, therefore, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to not have nitrogen, based on this data. Q. You’re referring to the decrease in resistivity as nitrogen is added? A. Yes. Q. Which is desirable? A. You want the resistivity to go down. Ex. 1036, 124:15–125:20. We are satisfied by each of Petitioner’s proffered reasons for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added nitrogen to Ding’s crystalline tantalum layer, as taught by Zhang. Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 5 would have been obvious over Ding and Zhang.” slip op. at 24

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

    “obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are unpatentable because they introduce limitations—nitrogen throughout the first film (claim 11) and nitrogen at the upper surface of the first film (claim 12)—that are met by the very references asserted in the ground of unpatentability involved in this inter partes review. Patent Owner’s Motion to substitute claims 11 and 12 is premised, incorrectly, on Zhang requiring pure tantalum (and, thus, no nitrogen) at the upper surface of its tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film. In fact, Zhang does not require any portion of the tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film to be pure tantalum. Ex. 1004, 3:53–54 (“The tantalum-rich tantalum nitride film has a range of approximately 0-30 atomic percent nitrogen.”). And, Zhang explicitly teaches that the upper surface may include nitrogen. Id. at 3:57– 62 (“A lower atomic percent nitrogen at the upper surface typically gives better adhesion to copper films. At the upper surface, the atomic percent tantalum may be at least 95% and the atomic percent nitrogen may be less than 5% if copper adhesion is particularly problematic.”); Ex. 1036, 40:1–6, 42:2–9, 42:15–21, 54:14–20 (Dr. Harris acknowledging that the upper surface of the film would contain some nitrogen). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that Patent Owner’s proposed claims 11 and 12 are not patentable over the art of record in this inter partes review. Put another way, and as Petitioner argues, claims 11 and 12 (like challenged claim 5) are unpatentable as they claim subject matter that would have been obvious over Ding in view of Zhang. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Amend Opp. 6–7 (“The instituted obviousness ground[] based on Zhang and Ding already include[s] the newly-added limitations Patent Owner seeks to add in its Substitute Claims 11–13. Thus, the Substitute Claims 11–13 remain unpatentable over each of the instituted grounds.”).14 Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is denied with respect to claims 11 and 12.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,538,324 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,538,324
• Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’Real Foods, LLCOther
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01107 · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 21 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Neilson, Kelly, and Miller because the references did not teach the nozzle limitations without hindsight, and secondary considerations weighed against obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the record before us, we determine that the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” means “a nozzle pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield,” and the phrase, “directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield using the nozzle,” means “spraying rinsing fluid onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” Our claim constructions are supported by the claim language for at least two reasons: First, the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” describes a component of a mixing machine. Claim 21 recites: “providing a mixing machine having . . . a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield.” Ex. 1001, 7:1–5. This limitation describes the structure of a mixing machine that is used to perform the claimed method. As Petitioner explains, “[c]laim 21 is a method claim that separately recites attributes of the provided mixing machine and a step of directing rinsing fluid.” Pet. Reply 4. “Oriented” describes the position of the nozzle in the machine. The nozzle is oriented before it is used to direct rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. In other words, the nozzle is pre-positioned. Second, the claim drafter used the term, “positionable,” rather than” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We accept Dr. Slocum’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) as an engineer with at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or related discipline and at least three years of professional or research experience in the design of consumer or medical products that utilize fluid systems. Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Dr. Maynes states that he does not necessarily agree with Dr. Slocum’s definition, but does not provide and alternative definition or no persuasive reasoning as to why Dr, Slocum’s definition is incorrect. Ex. 2023 ¶ 6. We also rely on Petitioner’s references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18

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

    “limited to automatic rinsing, Miller discloses an electronically controlled nozzle 129. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner argues that it would have been a simple substitution to modify Kelly’s spray device 56 with Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 and that the teachings of Kelly and Miller would have led a skilled artisan to orient Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 toward Neilson’s lid 16 and direct rinsing fluid thereon. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 82–85; Ex. 2027, 169–72). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument for two reasons. First, Petitioner’s reply argument relies on impermissible hindsight. The combination of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller does not teach or suggest the nozzle limitations of claim 21 without relying on the claim as a roadmap for selecting and modifying the teachings. Miller teaches nozzle 129 for spraying cleaning fluid onto a blender spindle after each use. Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Figs. 17, 18. Miller also discloses a splash shield in the form of a tubular sleeve inserted into a mixing container during blending. Id. ¶ 42; Ex. 1005, 4:1–4, 4:33–36. Like Neilson’s lid 16, Miller’s splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Although Miller’s nozzle 129 is pre-positioned, it is not pointed at a splash shield. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Fig. 18 (showing nozzle 129 for dispensing cleaning fluid onto spindle 114). To meet the nozzle limitations of claim 21, Kelly’s nozzle would need to be modified from a manually positionable nozzle to one that is pre-positioned such that it points at a splash shield. Such a modification is not suggested by Miller, which does not teach or suggest a nozzle pointed at a splash shield and instead teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Thus, even if combined, Neilson, Kelly, and Miller do not, absent hindsight, teach or suggest a method of rinsing a splash shield in which a nozzle is pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield and rinsing fluid is sprayed onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Slocum that is not supported by Miller, and we, thus, decline to afford it substantial weight. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 84, 85); see also Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 77).8 In paragraph 69, Dr. Slocum testifies that, “in the case of Miller,” the angle of the nozzle is adjusted “to clean . . . the splash shield.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 69. In paragraph 85, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller teaches “the rinsing fluid [is] used for the splash shield.” Id. ¶ 85. In paragraph 77, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller discloses using a nozzle oriented towards a splash shield for directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. Id. ¶ 77. Dr. Slocum’s testimony is inconsistent with Miller, which teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In fact, on cross-examination, Dr. Slocum conceded that Miller does not disclose automatic cleaning of the sleeve (splash shield) 8 See supra note 7. and that Miller’s nozzle is not pointed at the sleeve. Ex. 2027, 189:8– 190:11. Petitioner also relies on Dr. Slocum’s testimony that a PHOSITA reading Kelly would have substituted an electronic valve for Kelly’s manual valve and would have “put a bunch of them in at a bunch of different angles,” so when the valves are actuated, the whole thing is cleaned. Ex. 2027, 169:5–172:9; see Pet. Reply 13. In our view, the cited testimony is not credibly based on the teachings of the prior art references, as opposed to the teachings of the ’662 patent. Whereas Dr. Slocum opines that it would have been obvious to clean a splash shield using electronically operated nozzles (id.), Neilson, Kelly, and Miller all teach manual cleaning of a splash shield. Ex. 1002, 4:13–20; Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In view of the inconsistencies between Dr. Slocum’s testimony and the teachings of Miller, we do not give substantial weight to his opinion that the method of claim 21 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,520,662
• R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01268 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2 and 3 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Hon ’043 and Whittemore because the petitioner did not establish a sufficient motivation to combine them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11; PO Resp. 7–8. In light of the evidence before us, we find that the references themselves represent the level of ordinary skill in the art, and that we need not explicate it further. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 12350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves); 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). C.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 2016, 61:8–19. Petitioner, however, does not provide adequate explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would think that to be the case. In reaching that determination, we credit Mr. Meyst’s testimony over that of Dr. Sturges.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Ex. 2015 ¶ 98 (internal citations omitted). Dr. Sturges, however, stated at his deposition that he did not do any calculations to determine how factors such as the speed and pressure of the airstream, and the rate of change of the pressure of the airstream as it travels through the ejection holes and into the atomization chamber, would affect the dispersion of the droplets ejected from the ejection holes towards the heating wire in Hon ’043. Ex. 2016, 64:5–66:4. In light of the variables that can affect how the droplets could disperse upon ejection from the ejection holes, Petitioner has not explained adequately why a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that only a small amount of droplets would contact Hon ’043’s heating wire and that the atomization described in Hon ’043 is inefficient.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, we must “cast the mind back to the time the invention was made” and “occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented with only the references, and who is normally guided by then-accepted wisdom in the art.” W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Innogenetics, 512 F.3d at 1374 n.3 (“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of the references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”)). Here, Petitioner attempts to imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the claimed invention, when no prior art reference, references of record, or other evidence conveys or suggests that knowledge. Petitioner’s proposed rationale relies upon general and conclusory statements from Dr. Sturges regarding thermal dynamics that are not sufficiently supported in the record, and instead appear to be based on impermissible use of hindsight after review of the ’742 patent, rather than on a supported reason to modify the heating configuration in Hon ’043’s atomizer. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (stating that the fact finder must be aware “of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”). In order to establish a motivation to combine the references, Petitioner needed to explain sufficiently what would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to consider modifying the Hon ’043 atomizer to include a “heating wire wound on a part of the porous component” as recited in claims 2 and 3. Petitioner failed to provide such an explanation.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,365,742 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,365,742
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Broadcom CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01624 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Diaz did not disclose internally reprogrammable hardware accelerators, and the other grounds did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “3. Construction of “configurable” In construing this term, we have considered the specification of the ’353 patent and its prosecution history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxycinn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accord with these portions of the ’844 patent specification and file history discussed supra, we conclude that a hardware accelerator is configurable only if its functionality can be internally reprogrammed. Thus, under our construction, an accelerator selected by an API or other instrumentality would not itself be “configurable.” This will be discussed further infra.” slip op. at 8

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

    “However, as Patent Owner argues, Diaz ’353 does not explicitly or inherently disclose hardware accelerators that are configurable to perform decoding functions according to a plurality of decoding methods. In Diaz ’533 the overall decoder — as opposed to the constituent hardware accelerators — is configurable in that the processor controls which hardware accelerators are activated. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5–8. We see no meaningful distinction in this respect between Diaz ’353 and Sullivan ’021 which, as discussed above, discloses an API that is configurable to select various hardware accelerators, but which are not themselves configurable, to assist in the decoding process. See Prelim. Resp. 6. In sum, the functionality of the hardware accelerators of Diaz ’353 cannot be internally reprogrammed, but rather can only be bypassed or reused for various operations. Therefore, in accord with our claim construction set forth above, we determine that those hardware accelerators are not “configurable” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “C. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 14 over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, and of Claim 12 over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim As discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Diaz ’353 discloses the claim 1 requirement of configurable hardware accelerators. Claims 8, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and so also include this requirement by virtue of their dependency. Petitioner’s obviousness grounds directed to these claims is premised on Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 1 that Diaz ’353 discloses configurable hardware accelerators. Pet. 51–63. Petitioner does not provide argument or evidence — aside from the above-considered anticipation arguments based on Diaz ’353 alone — that the combination of Diaz ’353 with Purcell ’483, Fandrianto ’459 or Kim teaches or suggests “a hardware accelerator . . . configurable to perform the decoding function according to a plurality of decoding methods.” Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 8 and 14 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, or of claim 12 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,844
• Smith & Nephew, Inc. / Arthrocare Corp. v. Arthrex, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00918 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 10 and 11 unpatentable as obvious because the cited commercial-success evidence had little probative weight.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “(d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “Moreover, even if we were now to consider Exhibit 2013 and Professor Gall’s Declaration testimony about Ex. 2013, at best this evidence would merely create a presumption of nexus. Req. Reh’g. 6 (“a nexus should be presumed”). Establishing a presumption of nexus, however, does not establish commercial success or patentability. In re Kao, 639 F.3d at 1067 (when secondary considerations are present, “they are not always dispositive”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Although secondary considerations must be taken into account, they do not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion.”). As discussed above, the evidence of commercial success based on the sales data presented in the declaration testimony of Mr. Holter (Ex. 2029) and Mr. Vellturo (Ex. 2025) is entitled to little probative weight. Even if we were to attempt to balance this commercial success evidence against the substantial prior art evidence that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious, as discussed in our Final Written Decision, it would not change our conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious. See Fin. Dec. 68, 75. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument “that the evidence of record regarding commercial success sufficiently rebuts any showing of obviousness of claims 10 and 11.” Req. Reh’g. 6.” slip op. at 9

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,821,541

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.