- 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 - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,538,324 - 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 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,323,980 - Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., And Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 8, 2017 · IPR2016-01027 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over McGinity, Joshi, and Palermo.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“DISCUSSION A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’976 patent would have “a degree in one or more fields of medicine, chemical engineering, chemistry, pharmaceutical science, polymer chemistry, pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical technology, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacology, and/or a number of years of industry training or experience in one or more of those fields.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex.1009 ¶ 17). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 26. We, therefore, apply that skill level in our analysis, with the understanding that the level of skill is also reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The Specification teaches the following: The term “sustained release” is defined for purposes of the present invention as the release of the opioid analgesic from the oral dosage form at such a rate that blood (e.g., plasma) concentrations (levels) are maintained within the therapeutic range but below toxic levels over an extended period of time, e.g., from about 12 to about 24 hours as compared to an immediate release product. Preferably the sustained release is sufficient to provide a twice-a-day or a once-a-day formulation. Ex. 1001, 4:56–64. The use of “e.g.” in the above definition for “sustained release” plainly indicates that a 12 to about 24 hour time period is exemplary. Thus, we decline to limit the claim term as Patent Owner would have us do. Rather, we construe “extended release” as “release of the opioid analgesic from the oral dosage form at a rate such that blood (e.g., plasma) concentrations (levels) are maintained within the therapeutic range but below toxic levels over a period of time longer than that of an immediate release of the opioid analgesic.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Claim 1 is drawn to a dosage form—a composition. Patent Owner does not point out how the recitation of “abuse deterrent” in the preamble modifies the structurally complete dosage form recited in the body of claim 1. See Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[A] preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’”) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed.Cir.1997)). We conclude, therefore, that the term “abuse deterrent” is a goal of the invention, that is, it is merely a statement of intended use that is not entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner
“iv. “core matrix” The parties agree that the broadest reasonable construction of “core matrix” is “a blended mixture having: (a) PEO having a molecular weight of from about 300,000 to about 5,000,000 daltons, (b) magnesium stearate, and (c) oxycodone or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of oxycodone.” Ex. 3001. We adopt that agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision. v.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,060,976 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,060,976 - Colas Solutions, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 2, 2017 · IPR2016-01032 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14–23, and 25 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combination did not establish the claimed softening point limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ definitions differ in that under Patent Owner’s proposal, additional work experience can substitute for a science or engineering degree. Patent Owner supports that position by pointing to the backgrounds of Mr. O’Leary and the inventor, Mr. Blacklidge, neither of whom has a bachelor’s degree in engineering or science. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1034, 12:15–13:3; Ex. 2027, App’x A; see also Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 22–23 (discussing the educational background of active workers in the field). Patent Owner also cites Dr. King’s deposition testimony agreeing that Mr. O’Leary was an example of someone who had attained the level of ordinary skill in the art through sufficient work experience without academic credentials beyond high school. Ex. 2025, 376:4–377:14. This evidence supports Patent Owner’s position that relevant work experience can substitute for a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering in this case. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’624 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, civil engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related field of science or engineering, plus five years of experience in the field of asphalt paving and/or asphalt emulsion technology. Alternatively, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had ten years of experience in the field of asphalt paving and/or asphalt emulsion technology.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“Applying that standard for inherency, the evidence does not sufficiently support a finding that a cured tack coat formed from a base asphalt as described in Bardesi would necessarily have “a softening point greater than about 140 ° F. (60 ° C.),” as recited in claim 1. The parties are in agreement that Dr. King’s calculations using the Pfeiffer equation were in error and that Dr. Little’s calculations correctly apply the Pfeiffer equation. See PO Resp. 29; Reply 17; Tr. 27:7–28:10, 80:9–10. Even assuming the correctness of the assumptions undergirding Dr. King’s analysis of the softening point limitation — which include the reliability of the Pfeiffer equation to calculate softening point, the range of PI values between -1 and +1 for the asphalts described in Bardesi, and the use of a base asphalt’s softening point as a measure of the softening point for a cured tack coat made from that asphalt — the now agreed-upon data that result from the Pfeiffer equation show that not all 10-pen and 20-pen asphalts have a softening point greater than 60°C. Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 91–93. Indeed, Petitioner and Dr. King seem to concede this point. Reply 18; Tr. 80:8–14; see also Ex. 1030 ¶ 29 (rebuttal declaration of Dr. King stating that “most 10-20 pen paving grade asphalts” would have a softening point in the claimed range).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“At the hearing, Petitioner suggested that it was abandoning the inherency theory for the softening point limitation, stating that “we are not relying upon inherency with respect to all asphalts will necessarily have that claimed softening point.” See Tr. 80:8–14. The problem for Petitioner, however, is that inherency was the only theory presented in the Petition for why the cited combination teaches or renders obvious the softening point limitation. We have already reviewed above the numerous portions of the Petition in which Petitioner relied on inherency for the softening point limitation. See Pet. 22, 24, 27, 38, 40, 50.6 Petitioner argued at the hearing that inherency “wasn’t an all-or-nothing proposition”—i.e., that its Petition did not rely only on inherency for the softening point limitation. See Tr. 79:4–80:14. Petitioner pointed to its reliance on Dr. King’s experience, Dr. King’s use of the Pfeiffer equation, and the assumptions Dr. King used in applying the Pfeiffer equation. Id. Yet those are all facts that Petitioner relied on to show why the softening point limitation was inherently and necessarily present in Bardesi, not reasons why the softening point limitation would have been obvious separate or independent from inherency. To the extent Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply and at the hearing that the claimed range of softening points is typical or expected are offered as an alternative theory of obviousness in lieu of inherency, those arguments 6 Even in the Reply, Petitioner continued to refer to the softening point limitation as being inherently and necessarily present. See Reply 1 (“The [’]624 patent is invalid because Petitioner shows that this claimed softening point above 60ºC is inherent and ‘typical’ for many 10/20 pen asphalts disclosed in Bardesi.”) (emphasis added); id. at 3 (“any 10-20 pen specification paving grade bitumen purchased in Britain at the time of Bardesi’s publication would have necessarily had a softening point well above 60ºC”) (emphasis added). were not adequately developed and presented in the Petition. “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio- Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). “Unlike district court litigation— where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Id. The Federal Circuit has applied this rule to bar a petitioner from shifting its theory of obviousness after the patent owner pointed out the flaws of the obviousness case presented in the petition. See Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, Continental’s subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the petition. Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines.”). Likewise, the Petition in this case relied on inherency for the softening point limitation, and Patent Owner successfully rebutted that theory in its Patent Owner Response. Following that rebuttal, Petitioner is not permitted to abandon inherency to pursue a different theory that it did not present in its Petition. Accordingly, we do not reach the issue of whether the claim is obvious under a different theory than Petitioner advanced in its Petition.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner did not carry its burden to demonstrate that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the cited references. 2. Claims 2–12, 14–23, and 25 Independent claims 14 and 25 include substantially the same softening point limitation as in claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 15:8–10; 16:35–37. Petitioner’s evidence and arguments, and Patent Owner’s rebuttal, regarding the softening point limitation in those claims are the same as for claim 1. See Pet. 38, 40, 50; PO Resp. 24–47; Reply 4–6, 17–20. Thus, for the reasons discussed in Section III.D.1, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 14 and 25 would have been obvious in view of the cited combination. By virtue of their dependency, claims 2–12 and 15–23 incorporate the softening point limitation recited in claims 1 and 14. Thus, Petitioner also has not demonstrated the unpatentability of any of those claims. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,918,624 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,918,624 - Talari Networks, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks India LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00977 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are anticipated by Karol; all claims are obvious over Karol.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownGranted in part
“information to be gleaned by construing the words selecting/selects to mean “make a choice.” We also are not persuaded that there is a basis for inserting the word “discrete” into this construction. Therefore, based on the disputes before us, we see no reason to provide an express construction for the common terms select/selection.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Figure 5 of Karol depicts the packet forwarding process. Ex. 1006, 3:6–8. In step 501, a packet arrives at Karol’s CL router/switch 420. Id. 8:56–58. Step 503, then inquires as to whether the received packet is “a packet from a flow that needs CO Service.” Id. at Fig. 5, element 503 (emphasis added). Thus, we determine that Karol’s routing decisions are made for a flow of packets and not for an individual packet. As discussed above, we construed “selecting/selects, . . . within the controller on a per-packet basis” to require “selecting a network path for each packet.” See supra § II. Thus, we find that Karol does not disclose the per-packet selection required in claims 7 and 19. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that claims 7 and 19 are anticipated by Karol.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Path First) to determine routing prior to a packet being received at the gateway. PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner further contends that “[t]he OSPF routing protocol expressly excludes the possibility of making packet routing decisions on a per-packet basis.” Id. at 24. We find this to be an overly narrow view of Karol’s disclosures because Karol is not limited to OSPF. See Ex. 1006, 14:20–22 (“the description below assumes the OSPF routing protocol, the concept is readily applicable to other IP routing protocols”). We determine that Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious to modify Karol to select networks on a per-packet basis. Petitioner has proposed a modification to Karol that is “much simpler” and, therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce system complexity. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 335. Petitioner has provided arguments and evidence sufficient to show that this modification would be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See id. Thus, we find that Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it would have been obvious to modify Karol in a manner that would have taught this limitation.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,406,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,406,048 - Dell Inc. / Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 31, 2017 · IPR2017-00364 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 25 unpatentable because it did not establish a reasonable expectation of success combining the cited references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are partially consistent with Patent Owner’s view, but, nonetheless, Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be the “ultimate generalist.” Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 16–17 (citing Ex. 2015, 84:13–20). We do not observe a meaningful differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, Dr. Creusere appears to satisfy either assessment. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment, but, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not argue a claim construction for any terms. See generally PO Resp.; Reply. In the Decision to Institute, we did not construe any terms. Dec. 4–5. We determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131– 132), on this record, we cannot reconcile paragraphs 131–132 of his declaration when faced with the plethora of his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21– 83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices. Petitioner’s modeling, simulation, and testing theory fails to satisfy sufficiently its “reasonable expectation of success” theory evidentiary burden pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (it is “improper” to argue an obviousness theory on the basis that “it would have been ‘obvious to try’ . . . to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result.”). Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“obviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into ‘a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ and ‘merely throwing metaphorical darts at a board’ in hopes of arriving at a successful result.”). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit explained in Kubin, the Board should not use hindsight based on allegations that require that the person having ordinary skill in the art to randomly pick from a board filled with combinational prior art possibilities. Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359. To paraphrase, Petitioner is attempting to bypass its evidentiary burden of having to proffer particular evidence of a specific combination, which would teach the “faster than” limitation recited in claims 1, 21, and 25 by instead repeating that “modeling, simulation, and testing” leads to a reasonable expectation of success (Pet. 28); whereas, in this proceeding, the number of permutations and variables are “unlimited” and “impossible” to address, as acknowledged by Dr. Creusere (Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13– 24, 143:20–144:3). That is, Petitioner’s attempt at crafting a theory of obviousness using non-specific teachings from Franaszek and Osterlund that allegedly demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success; this attempt, however, falls significantly short of the Federal Circuit’s requirements. Another obstacle to our reliance on Dr. Creusere’s vacillating opinions is Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. Dr. Zeger opines in his declaration that Franaszek illustrates complex choices a person having ordinary skill in the art would face in considering whether and how to modify Franaszek in light of Osterlund on this record. Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 152–169. In particular, Dr. Zeger opines that Franaszek’s approach requires numerous steps that each create delays before compression occurs, which are illustrated in Dr. Zeger’s figure below. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Put another way, we do not find that Petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable expectation of success” when Dr. Creusere acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art did not specify whether to discard or keep Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s teachings of compression algorithms, or incorporate other such algorithms, or what data type or data types an intended system teaches would be created to compress, or what specific goals and objectives the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve. Compare id. at 75:18–76:19, 126:20–127:1, 76:24–78:6, 94:4–12, 96:4–98:14 with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–134; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 165–167. Instead, Petitioner simply asserts, in a conclusory manner, that “[b]ecause the relevant art is predictable and compression algorithms and transmission times may be modeled, simulated, and easily tested, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these various teachings found in the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention” (emphasis added). Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132). Notably, Dr. Creusere acknowledges that the number of possible permutations faced by a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been “unlimited” and that it was “impossible” for him to address “all the permutations of those possibilities.” Id. at 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20– 144:3. Although Dr. Creusere opines that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131– 132), on this record, we cannot reconcile paragraphs 131–132 of his declaration when faced with the plethora of his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21– 83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices. Petitioner’s modeling, simulation, and testing theory fails to satisfy sufficiently its “reasonable expectation of success” theory evidentiary burden pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (it is “improper” to argue an obviousness theory on the basis that “it would have been ‘obvious to try’ . . . to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result.”). Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“obviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into ‘a finite” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,908 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,908
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.