- Juniper Networks, Inc. / Ruckus Wireless, Inc. et al. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,019,838 - PTAB · Dec 26, 2017 · IPR2017-02201 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Order
The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding as to all parties because the parties had settled their dispute.
RulingsOther- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Other
“and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, these sections relate, respectively, to termination of “[a]n inter partes review instituted under this chapter” and to termination of “trial,” which “means a contested case instituted by the Board based upon a petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 317; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.2, 42.72. This proceeding is in the preliminary stage, and no decision whether to institute a trial has been made. As such, we treat the parties’ request as seeking dismissal of the Petition to thereby terminate the proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“U.S. Patent No. 6,684,060 B1. Mot. 3–4. The parties represent that “there are no other agreements or understandings, oral or written, between DTS and Avago, including any collateral agreements, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of the present proceeding.” Mot. 3. Under these circumstances, we determine that it is appropriate to dismiss the Petition (Paper 1) and terminate this proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(a), 42.74(a). We also determine that it is appropriate to treat the Agreements as business confidential information to be kept separate from the patent file. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,684,060 - Apple Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · 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
NonePatents in suitUS 6,807,524 - Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (D/B/A On Semiconductor) v. Power Integrations, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00995 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 26 and 27 unpatentable as anticipated by MC33362.
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. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“arguments. Our claim construction made clear in interpreting “multi-function circuit” that we agree with Patent Owner that the circuit is separate and distinct from the recited “control circuit” in the sense that the claim recites two distinct elements. Dec. 18. However, our interpretation further determined that although we agree “that the multi-function circuit and the control circuit are separate and distinct components in the claims, the claim language does not require that the functions performed by the two distinct circuits must be similarly separate and distinct.” Id. at 22. We further observed that, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification of the ’908 patent mentions certain functions of the multi-function circuit that are clearly tightly coupled to the “core regulation” function of the recited “control circuit.” Id. at 24–25 (e.g., shutting down the power supply in response to detecting over-voltage or under-voltage conditions). Thus, our Decision is consistent with our interpretation of “multi-function circuit” and expressly disagrees with Patent Owner’s arguments that the functions of the two circuits must also be separate and distinct.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,538,908 - Hengdian Group Dmegc Magnetics Co., Ltd. / Zhejiang Innuovo Magnetics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hitachi Metals, Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 6,527,874 - SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · CBM2016-00081 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103; the motion to amend proposing claims 22–49 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that “[b]ased on the technologies disclosed in the ’506 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree or higher in computer science or computer engineering, as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in the relevant field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Although Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner does opine about the same in its Motion to Amend. Therein, Patent Owner argues that: a person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would have been a person who had a degree in computer science, or the equivalent of that degree, and some substantive experience with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on internet systems. [Ex. 2006, 23] It would have been very rare to find anyone to have had a computer degree and as much as three to five years of experience in the area of Web technology as of November 1995. (Id.) Mot. Amend 5–6. Based on the positions of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find mostly agreement as to the level of skill of such ordinarily skilled artisans and we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had the equivalent of a degree in computer science or computer engineering, as well as some substantive experience 29 with Web technologies then being developed and considered by persons then working on Internet systems. This level of skill is considered and applied in the grounds below.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“networked object,” and that we “willfully left out ‘Individual’ and only construed ‘Network Object.’” PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner is correct that we did not construe “individual networked object.” The reason is that it is not a term recited in the challenged claims, nor claim 14, from which the challenged claims depend. We construed “networked object,” i.e., without “individual,” because it is a term recited in the claims. Patent Owner also argues that the proper construction of “networked object” is “the information entries and attributes in a DOLSIB [distributed on-line service information base].” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:50–54). We do not agree. Although the specification of the ’506 Patent details that “[t]he networked object identity 11 identifies the information entries and attributes in the DOLSIB as individual networked objects,” that is not a definition of “network objects.” We continue to find that the broadest reasonable construction, in view of the specification, of “networked object” is “an object that operates within a network or transmitted over a network.” We are not persuaded that “individual networked object” need be construed because it is not a claim term, and we are not persuaded that every recitation of “networked object” must refer to an “individual networked object.” Patent Owner argues that we did not construe the claim term “attributes,” which should be understood as “characteristics of an object.” Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Petitioner counters that the passages cited by Patent Owner do not support the proffered definition, because those passages do not contain the word “attribute.” Pet. Reply 4. Although Patent Owner’s construction is not unreasonable, claim 14 already recites that the step of “associating an object identity with information entries and attributes,” so that “attributes” need not be referred to as “characteristics of an object,” since such an association is already directly recited in the claims. As such, we are not persuaded that the claim term “attributes” needs explicit construction. Similarly, Patent Owner argues that “information entries” should be construed as “values of the characteristics of an object.” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:45–58, 23:19–25). Again, we find it unnecessary to tie “information entries” to an object, since the association is already provided 12 in claim 14. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “information entries” needs explicit construction. With respect to the claim term “virtual information store,” we construed that term as “an information store in which information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity,” as discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we have not given proper effect to the word “virtual,” arguing that the proper construction is “a transient information store that is temporarily created and which contains information entries and attributes associated with a networked object identity.” PO Resp. 39–41. Patent Owner cites to the specification of the ’506 Patent (Ex. 1001, 3:1–5, 8:47–54), and “[t]he IBM Computer Dictionary” (id.), but, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not “submitted this dictionary as an exhibit or provided any further information to locate the dictionary.” Further, the sections of the ’506 Patent cited by Patent Owner are not explicit about the store being “transient” or “temporarily created;” this is an inference drawn by Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 40. The introduction of the terms “transient” and “temporarily” to the construction adds more ambiguity to the claim term because the specification of the ’506 Patent does not discuss how long any “virtual information store” would be stored or maintained. In addition, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s provision of affirmatively containing the information entries and attributes is necessary because having a store in which the information entries and attributes are associated with a networked object identity would have been understood by ordinarily skilled artisans as being a store containing those elements. 13 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the claim term “virtual information store” requires a different construction and we maintain the construction provided in the Institution Decision, which is reproduced above.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenUnpatentable
“not have been obvious to make any changes to Lawlor’s system,” and that “the whole purpose of Lawlor is to establish a system built upon an existing software and infrastructure that would require no changes.” PO Resp. 80–81 (emphasis in original). We do not agree. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner misinterprets Lawlor’s teachings, “improperly concluding that Lawlor teaches away from any combination or modification.” Pet. Reply 24 (emphasis in original). Lawlor explains that “[b]ecause the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks’ computers,” demonstrating that Lawlor makes use of a standard ATM network and existing external systems without significant modification. Ex. 1004, Abstr. As explained by Dr. Sirbu, incorporation of techniques described in CORBA into Lawlor’s system would not require modification to the external systems of Lawlor or additional processing at the central computer of Lawlor. Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. Lawlor system does not restrict or disparage modification, and Patent Owner has not pointed out any portion that purportedly restricts or disparages modification. Patent Owner also argues that Lawlor does not disclose “an OSI Layer 7 application layer switch as is the VAN Switch in FIG. 5B.” PO Resp. 79. As discussed above, however, challenged claims 20 and 21 do not recite a VAN switch, and the only consideration of such a switch comes from Patent Owner’s claims constructions that we do not adopt. As such, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a 45 preponderance of the evidence that claim 20 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor and CORBA, and that the subject matter of claim 21 is unpatentable over the combination of Lawlor, CORBA and Billings.” slip op. at 45
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“2. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendments in a motion to amend must respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Patent Owner’s new claims do not respond to any ground of unpatentability in the trial. Those grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103 and directed at claims 20 and 21. Pet. 28–73. Both claims 20 and 21 depend on claim 14 and the grounds of unpatentability consider all of the elements of claim 14. Thus, for example, new claim 25, which recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the user device is a multi-media device,” does not purport to demonstrate that such a claim brings the subject matter into the scope of § 101, nor that such a multi-media device would not be obvious over Lawlor, CORBA, and Billings. See Mot. Amend 9–17. Patent Owner’s analysis addresses claims 22–49 as a group and does not address all of the elements of the new claims. Id. Patent Owner also fails to indicate if any of the new claims include any feature of the challenged claims. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(i). 3. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3) Rule 221(a)(2)(i) requires that the amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3), which details that “[a]n amendment under this subsection may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” Patent Owner appears to take this rule as merely requiring that “the new claims do not enlarge the scope of any of the old claims.” Mot. Amend 3. 52 The “old claims,” however, are the only two claims existing in the ’506 Patent, namely claims 20 and 21. They are the “scope of the claims of the patent,” and the scope cannot refer to any claim that might have existed during the prosecution of the ’506 Patent. See Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, we look to the scope of claims 20 and 21 to determine the scope of the claims of a patent. Proposed new claims in the Motion to Amend improperly enlarge the scope of claims 20 and 21. For example, new claim 27 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 14, wherein the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” This proposed claim is broader, in at least one aspect, than claims 20 and 21, which also depend from claim 14, because it contains none of the elements of claims 20 and 21, although it adds an additional element, i.e., “the service is configurable specific to the context of a Web merchant.” For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3). 4. § 42.221(a)(3) and 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) Section (a)(3) of Rule 221 discusses that a patent owner must propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, and goes on to discuss that “[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.” The claims subject to the instant proceeding are claims 20 and 21, such that the normal presumption would be for the inclusion of two substitute claims. 53 Patent Owner does not address why the proposed 28 claims are a reasonable number of substitutes for the 2 challenged claims, so Patent Owner cannot be said to have rebutted the one for one presumption by any demonstration of need. We also note that this rule is fully supported by 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B), which details that for the amendment of a patent, for each challenged claim, “a reasonable number of substitute claims” must be proposed. Petitioner points out that the meaning of “reasonable number of substitute claims” has been previously addressed by the Board, providing “in the absence of special circumstance, a challenged claim can be replaced by only one claim, and a motion to amend should, for each proposed substitute claim, specifically identify the challenged claim which it is intended to replace.” Opp. 1–2 (citing Idle Free at 5). Furthermore, as Petitioner addresses, Patent Owner has failed to identify which of the challenged claims are intended to be replaced by the new claims. Id. Patent Owner’s response appears to be that “PO does not propose a reasonable number of substitute claims, because it is not necessary.” PO Reply 2. This, however, is not responsive. For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(3) or the statutory requirements of § 326(d)(1)(B). 5. 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1) Rule 221(b)(1) requires that a motion to amend must show the changes clearly and set for the support in the original disclosure of the patent for claim that is added. In the case of new claims 22–49, Patent Owner does 54 not indicate any changes from the claims subject to the present proceeding. The claims are indicated as being new, so that no changes from the pending claims are discussed at all. See Claim App’x. In addition, Patent Owner argues that written description support for the new claims can be found in a chart provided in a reexamination of the patent. Mot. Amend 3 (citing inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,129). We note that such incorporation by reference is not permitted under our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). As well, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that the claims provided in the chart are the same as the new claims. Opp. 4. Given this deficit, Patent Owner cannot successfully meet the regulatory requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a) or (b)(1) regarding written description support, based on the present record. Additionally, Patent Owner has failed to provide any mapping of the new claims to those old claims, and, as Petitioner points out, the Board determined during the cited inter partes reexamination that no written description support was provided for a number of limitations identical to those recited in the new claims. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 32–36). For at least these reasons, we find that Patent Owner has not complied with the substantive requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(b)(1). 6. Conclusion As discussed above, Patent Owner has not demonstrated compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.221(a), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(2)(i), 42.221(a)(3), or 42.221(b)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(1)(B) and (3). As such, Patent Owner has failed to meet the substantive requirements for a motion to amend.” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 7,340,506 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,340,506 - Roquette Freres, S.A. v. Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01506 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving claim 4 in the instituted trial because it had not overlooked the digestibility limitation or the concurrent decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We did not overlook the digestibility limitation in claim 4. Nor did we overlook the decision that we entered concurrently in IPR1507. On the contrary, having determined that Petitioner met the threshold for review of claim 1 of the ’436 patent (Dec. 10), we ordered (as permitted by our authorizing statute) “that trial shall proceed on all other claims challenged as anticipated” or obvious over Shah (Ex. 1008). Id. at 10 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)), 11 (for obviousness grounds based on Shah). We specifically included those other claims in the trial “without reaching any preliminary findings or conclusions on the merits.” Id. at 10. We pointed out that doing so serves our mission of securing the just, speedy, and efficient resolution of the parties’ dispute. Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b), 42. 108). That action was not inconsistent with any finding in the decision declining to institute trial in IPR1507. Nor does it establish that we overlooked or misapprehended any matter in the Decision entered in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,608,436 - 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,520,662 - Sony Corporation v. Fujifilm CorporationRehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 18, 2017 · IPR2017-00618 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted review of claims 1–3 on anticipation by Hennecken and obviousness over Hennecken with Albrecht II, with or without Dugas, under Basis 1.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Petitioner, as the party challenging the Decision, has the burden of showing the Decision 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 Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Albrecht Declaration that a POSA would have understood Hennecken to be disclosing “a plurality of servo bands on each of which is written a different servo signal for tracking control of the magnetic head” as required by independent claim 1, and Patent Owner provides evidence in the Messner Declaration that a POSA would have understood that Hennecken does not teach that a different servo signal is written on each servo band for tracking control. See, e.g., Pet. 22–25; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 105–113, 174–177; Prelim. Resp. 29–33; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 88–98. This conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding how a POSA would have understood Hennecken. For purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review, we must view any issues of material fact created by testimonial evidence in the light most favorable to Petitioner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we must resolve the dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner regarding how a POSA would have understood Hennecken in Petitioner’s favor.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“reasons as to why a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II. Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 231–237. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that “a POSA would not have been motivated to use the techniques of embedding information in the low frequency transitions, as disclosed in Albrecht II, in order to embed a servo stripe number, as disclosed in Hennecken for the simple reason that Hennecken plainly teaches away from such a combination.” Prelim. Resp. 38. Patent Owner relies on Dr. Messner’s testimony to support its contentions. Id. at 38–41; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 109–116. The conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II as Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we must resolve this dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner in Petitioner’s favor. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The parties will have the opportunity to further develop these facts and” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayInstituted
“reasons as to why a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II. Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 231–237. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argues that “a POSA would not have been motivated to use the techniques of embedding information in the low frequency transitions, as disclosed in Albrecht II, in order to embed a servo stripe number, as disclosed in Hennecken for the simple reason that Hennecken plainly teaches away from such a combination.” Prelim. Resp. 38. Patent Owner relies on Dr. Messner’s testimony to support its contentions. Id. at 38–41; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 109–116. The conflicting expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hennecken and Albrecht II as Petitioner proposes. For purposes of this Decision, we must resolve this dispute between Dr. Albrecht and Dr. Messner in Petitioner’s favor. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The parties will have the opportunity to further develop these facts and” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,355,805 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. / Arthrocare Corp. v. Arthrex, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · 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 obviousnessPatents 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.