• Permobil, Inc. v. Pride Mobility Products CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 31, 2014 · IPR2013-00411 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Goertzen and Hosino; claims 1 and 4–10 are also unpatentable as obvious over Goertzen and Mulhern ’420.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “plate”(claim 1) In the Decision to Institute, we concluded that no express construction of “a forward-extending front arm rigidly extending from the mounting plate” was necessary. Dec. to Inst. 7–8. Neither party contests that conclusion, and nothing since our Decision to Institute indicates it should be changed. We maintain our conclusion that no express construction of “a forward-extending front arm rigidly extending from the mounting plate” is necessary.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Figures 3B depicts mounting plate 56 relative to drive wheel axis A-DW. However, the ’343 patent also discloses that: for conventional configurations having a motor that is perpendicular to the drive wheel axis (and requiring a right angle gearbox, which is not shown in the figures), the motor swings about the gearbox output shaft to impart motion to the front caster arm, as for example shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,129,165. Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 20–25 (emphasis added). Figure 9 of the ’165 patent is reproduced below: Figure 9 depicts a side view of a power wheelchair according to the ’165 patent. The ’343 Patent describes motor 80 of Figure 9 as “perpendicular to the drive wheel axis” 24. As can be seen by a comparison of the figures, motor 80 of Figure 9 of the ’165 patent is oriented differently from mounting plate 56 of Figure 3B of the ’343 patent. Thus, the ’343 patent uses “perpendicular to the drive wheel axis” to refer to orientations other than the orientation of mounting plate 56 in Figure 3B.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art required at least three years of experience specific to obstacle-traversing and curb-climbing systems and suspensions, as Patent Owner contends. The problems identified by Patent Owner and the skills required—e.g., “analysis of the various forces and moments,” “understanding of moment arms,” “understand[ing] the effects on moments and forces,” (PO Resp. 28–29)— are within the ordinary skill of a person with an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering. Moreover, we note that the named inventor of the ’343 patent—James Mulhern—testified, in a related reexamination, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had only “a B.S. in mechanical engineering or equivalent, or at least 3 years of experience in the field of designing powered wheelchairs for personal mobility.” Ex. 1026 ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Based on our review of the technology claimed in the ’343 patent and the description of the powered wheelchair set forth in the specification, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either (1) an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent degree; or (2) at least three years of experience designing powered wheelchairs for personal mobility.” slip op. at 10

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

    “deceleration, or doing any of the engineering that, according to him, would be necessary to compensate for the reduced stability caused by a lower pivot. PO Resp. 19–23. The question before us, however, is not whether Dr. Richter did the engineering necessary to combine the prior art into a functional prototype, but whether doing so would have been within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. In that regard, we credit Dr. Richter’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to change various other parameters in order to achieve a stable version of the claimed invention. Ex. 2004, 185:23–186:14. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed modification is anything but routine (PO Resp. 23–25), but does not explain why such calculations would not have been within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has articulated sufficiently a reason with rational underpinnings for for combining the teachings of Goertzen and Hosino to achieve the wheelchair recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,408,343 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,408,343
• Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00403 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled claims 1–27 and granted substitute claims 28 and 30, but denied substitute claims 29 and 31–33 for failure to meet amendment requirements or show patentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “1. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 28 as a substitute for claim 2, claim 29 as a substitute for claim 11, claim 30 as a substitute for claim 13, claim 31 as a substitute for claim 22, claim 32 as a substitute for claim 24, and claim 33 as a substitute for claim 27. Mot. 1–6. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. No limitations are removed. Petitioner in its Opposition does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’583 patent. See Mot. 8. We are persuaded that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the original patent claims.” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “2. Written Description Support Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), a motion to amend in an inter partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “Term Proposed Interpretation “sync point” “a location in a data flow having data meeting a specified criteri[on]” “fine sync point” “a location in a data flow having data meeting a specified fine criteri[on] that is less restrictive than a coarse criteri[on]” “coarse sync point” “a location in a data flow having data meeting a specified coarse criteri[on] more restrictive than a fine criteri[on]” Mot. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 20–57). Petitioner in its Opposition does not argue that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations are incorrect. We agree that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations represent the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification of the ’583 patent. The Specification discloses fine filter 560 and coarse filter 565, where “[t]he appliance designates the locations in the data flow which meet the fine and coarse filter criteria as fine and coarse sync-points, respectively,” and the filter criteria for coarse filter 565 are “more restrictive” than the filter criteria for fine filter 560. Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 20–38. The Specification also describes an example where “the filter criteri[on] declares a fine sync-point when the top five bits of the hashes are all zeros and a coarse filter criteri[on] which stores or compares hashes when the top ten bits of the hashes are all zeros” (i.e., the filter criterion for the coarse filter is more restrictive). Id. at col. 9, ll. 30–34. Accordingly, we interpret “sync point,” “fine sync point,” and “coarse sync point” as set forth above.” slip op. at 14

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Also, in the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of the independent claims of the ’583 patent as follows: Term Interpretation “network memory” (claims 1, 12, device(s) in a network for and 23) storing information “appliance” (claims 1, 12, and 23) hardware and/or software elements applied to a particular use “instruction” (claims 1, 12, and a message or signal that 23) indicates, explicitly or implicitly, an action to perform See Dec. on Inst. 6–10. Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims depend from the original independent claims of the ’583 patent, and the parties do not dispute these interpretations in their papers. We do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from these interpretations. Accordingly, for purposes of assessing the proposed substitute claims, we incorporate our previous analysis of the three terms above. See id.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,370,583
• Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00402 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board canceled claims 1–12 and granted the motion to amend for substitute claims 13 and 15, but denied it for claims 14 and 16–18 based on unmet amendment and eligibility requirements.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In a motion to amend, the patent owner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate patentability of its proposed substitute claims over the prior art and, thus, entitlement to the claims. Idle Free at 7. This does not mean that the patent owner is assumed to be aware of every item of prior art known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, the patent owner should explain in its motion why the proposed substitute claims are patentable over not just the prior art of record, but also prior art not of record but known to the patent owner: A patent owner should identify specifically the feature or features added to each substitute claim, as compared to the challenged claim it replaces, and come forward with technical facts and reasoning about those feature(s), including construction of new claim terms, sufficient to persuade the Board that the proposed substitute claim is patentable over the prior art of record, and over prior art not of record but known to the patent owner. The burden is not on the petitioner to show unpatentability, but on the patent owner to show patentable distinction over the prior art of record and also prior art known to the patent owner. Some representation should be made about the specific technical disclosure of the closest prior art known to the patent owner, and not just a conclusory remark that no prior art known to the patent owner renders obvious the proposed substitute claims. Id. This includes addressing the basic knowledge and skill set possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art even without reliance on any particular item of prior art. Id. at 7–8; Toyota at 4–5. The petitioner then has the opportunity, in its opposition, to argue any deficiency in the patent owner’s motion and “come forward with specific evidence and reasoning, including citation and submission of any applicable prior art,” to rebut the patent owner’s position on patentability. Idle Free at 8.” slip op. at 16

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “1. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 13 as a substitute for claim 4, claim 14 as a substitute for claim 3, claim 15 as a substitute for claim 8, claim 16 as a substitute for claim 7, claim 17 as a substitute for claim 12, and claim 18 as a substitute for claim 11. Mot. 1–6. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. No limitations are removed. Petitioner in its Opposition does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’226 patent. See Mot. 8–9. We are persuaded that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the original patent claims.” slip op. at 11

  • 112 supportGranted

    “2. Written Description Support Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), a motion to amend in an inter partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues that it would not have been obvious to incorporate the technique of Spring into a network data de-duplication system, as recited in the proposed substitute claims, because Spring “had very limited practical application in the network memory context.” Mot. 12. Patent Owner’s position is supported by the statement in McCanne ’376 that due to Spring’s small cache and first-in first-out replacement policy, “the efficacy of [Spring’s] approach is limited to detecting and exploiting communication redundancies that are fairly localized in time.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20; see Mot. 12. The proposed substitute claims, which identify sync points from which forward and backward memory comparisons are performed, are not limited to only recently transmitted data. Patent Owner also asserts that the specific combination of “fine and coarse filtering of hash values” and “forward and backward memory comparison” limitations recited in the proposed substitute claims represents a practical solution to the “tradeoff” that exists with data de-duplication systems, and is not solved by any of the prior art of record. Mot. 12–13. Specifically, Patent Owner states that there is a “tradeoff” between the size of an index and the likelihood that an indexed segment will be matched. Id. Spring uses a small fixed-size cache and small packets, and, thus, works best for only recently transmitted data. Id. By contrast, according to Patent Owner, the proposed substitute claims provide a practical solution to the tradeoff by operating at the byte-level and using a combination of fine and coarse filters to identify sync points from which forward and backward memory comparisons are performed. Id. Patent Owner’s explanations regarding the prior art and why the proposed substitute claims allegedly would not have been obvious are supported by the record and are persuasive. We also note that although Petitioner addresses the “fine and coarse filtering of hash values” limitations in its Opposition (arguing that they are taught by Hsu), Petitioner does not argue that Hsu—or any other reference— teaches or suggests the “forward and backward memory comparison” limitations. Nor does Petitioner propose any specific combination of references that allegedly would have rendered obvious the proposed substitute claims as a whole. Thus, Patent Owner’s assertions regarding key aspects of the prior art, such as Spring, essentially are unrebutted.” slip op. at 23

  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,312,226
• Nuvasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · IPR2013-00396 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–12 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Steffee, Michelson ’037, and Kim.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner argues that ratchetings should be construed as “facets that are angled to afford forward movement of the spinal fusion implant in one direction and facets that are angled to prevent the spinal fusion implant from backing out in the opposite direction.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 38). Petitioner does not present an alternate construction. We determine that Patent Owner’s construction is consistent with the Specification and the language of the claim itself, and, thus, we adopt that construction.” slip op. at 10

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

    “a hole that extends from the upper bearing surface to the lower bearing surface that is of sufficient size to permit growth of bone therethrough. Stated differently, “opening,” as required by challenged independent claims 7 and 10, requires that the hole be vertical in the implant as placed. While Steffee does not teach a vertical opening, it does teach that the implant has a plurality of horizontal openings that extend between the side surfaces to allow for blood flow, as well as bone growth from one side of the implant to the other. Ex. 1108, 2:64–67. Michelson ’037 also teaches an implant that may contain a plurality of cells or openings of 1–3 mm, into which fusion-promoting materials may be placed, allowing a bony bond between the adjacent vertebrae to each other, as well as to the implant. Ex. 1109, 8:10–21. Thus, the openings of Steffee and the opening of Michelson ’037 serve the same purpose—that is, to allow the growth of bone to aid in bonding the implants to the adjacent vertebrae. The addition of vertical openings as taught by Michelson ’037 to the implant of Steffee would have been a predictable use of an element taught by the prior art according to its established function. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “The obviousness inquiry, however, does not require an advantage or an improvement in properties. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed by the patent applicant is the preferred, or most desirable, combination.”); see also In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[a] known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.”). Moreover, the fact that Brantigan ’757, referenced by Steffee, discloses horizontal slots, but Steffee did not adopt them, does not amount to a teaching away from the use of horizontal slots. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201 (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any . . . alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner

    “Michelson ’037 and Kim as compared to Steffee, Petitioner engaged in improper hindsight in combining Steffee with Michelson ’037 and Kim to arrive at the implant of challenged independent claims 7 and 10. PO Resp. 46. We disagree. Although the Supreme Court has cautioned that it may be valuable to identify a particular reason to combine two references, the obviousness analysis is not limited to this inquiry. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Similarly, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. The combination of Steffee, Michelson ’037, and Kim is no more “than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,444,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,444,696
• Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as anticipated by Paul; the Board rejected the Ratsimor anticipation and obviousness grounds because Ratsimor was not proven publicly accessible.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “subsidy” Independent claim 1 recites “recognizing a subsidy, according to the subsidy program, for the subscriber.” The ’670 patent does not set forth a special definition for “subsidy.” Accordingly, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term “subsidy”—financial assistance given by one to another.5 The ’670 patent’s use of “subsidy” is consistent with its ordinary meaning. Specifically, the ’670 patent describes an advertiser setting up a subsidy program to subsidize communication fees, offer product discounts, generate and accumulate “reward points” for subscribers, or mitigate or defer other expenses of the subscriber. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 39-45 (referring to Fig. 2). These examples are financial in nature. Product discounts reduce the monetary cost of a financial transaction, reward points are a form of currency, and mitigating or deferring expenses reduces the monetary cost of a financial transaction or postpones the monetary cost of a financial transaction, respectively. Also, the ’670 describes, as part of a subscriber setup process, an intermediary presenting, to a subscriber for selection, “subsidy programs available, including the criteria for continued subsidy and levels of subsidy.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 59-65 (referring to Fig. 3); see id. at col. 4, ll. 16-17. In an example of a bi-directional endorsement process, the ’670 patent further describes an advertiser calculating the amount to” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We agree the preamble is limiting. In general, a preamble is construed as a limitation “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When the limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Notably, the preamble of independent claim 1 requires “a source communication device possessed by a subscriber,” “a destination communication device possessed by a recipient,” and “an advertisement.” The body of claim 1 recites “the source communication device,” “the subscriber,” “the destination communication device,” and “the 17 advertisement,” all of which rely on and derive antecedent basis from the preamble of claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that the preamble of independent claim 1 is entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we do not find sufficient evidence that the Ratsimor paper was accessible publicly and, therefore, we conclude the Ratsimor paper is not a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Section 102 states: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (b) the invention was . . . described in a printed publication . . . more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2011). “The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) may be an electronic publication, such as the Ratsimor paper is purported to be. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981) (holding that an electronic publication is considered to be a “printed publication” “upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation”).” slip op. at 22

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

    “as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371; see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“The [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”). Although the elements must be arranged 30 or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the prior art reference is read from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,457,670 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,457,670
• Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00035 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 and 29 are unpatentable: claims 2–15, 20–23, and 29 over Paul; claims 1–19, 23–25, and 29 for lack of written description. Claims 26–27 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Accordingly, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term “subsidy”— financial assistance given by one to another.5 The ’516 patent’s use of “subsidy” is consistent with its ordinary meaning. Specifically, the ’516 patent describes an advertiser setting up a subsidy program to subsidize communication fees, offer product discounts, generate and accumulate “reward points” for subscribers, or mitigate or defer other expenses of the subscriber. Ex. 1001, 3:21–27 (referring to Fig. 2). These examples are financial in nature. Product discounts reduce the monetary cost of a financial transaction, reward points are a form of currency, and mitigating or deferring expenses reduces the monetary cost of a financial transaction or postpones the monetary cost of a financial transaction, respectively. Also, the ’516 patent describes, as part of a subscriber setup process, an intermediary presenting, to a subscriber for selection, “subsidy programs 5 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 896 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “subsidy” as “1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest. 2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.”). available, including the criteria for continued subsidy and levels of subsidy.” Ex. 1001, 4:41–43 (referring to Fig. 3). For these reasons, in the Decision to Institute, the Board construed “subsidy” as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Dec. 7–9. Neither party challenges this construction. Having considered whether the construction set forth in the Decision to Institute should be changed in light of evidence introduced during trial, we are not persuaded any modification is necessary. Therefore, we maintain the construction of “subsidy” as “financial assistance given by one to another.”” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The determination of whether a particular reference qualifies as a prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Whether the Ratsimor Paper Was Publicly Accessible in November 2003 Although Petitioner does provide some evidence to support its position, after considering all of the evidence regarding the facts and the circumstances surrounding the public accessibility of the Ratsimor paper, in view of the relevant case law, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that the Ratsimor paper was publicly accessible in November 2003.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “The determination of whether a particular reference qualifies as a prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Whether the Ratsimor Paper Was Publicly Accessible in November 2003 Although Petitioner does provide some evidence to support its position, after considering all of the evidence regarding the facts and the circumstances surrounding the public accessibility of the Ratsimor paper, in view of the relevant case law, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that the Ratsimor paper was publicly accessible in November 2003.” slip op. at 18

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

    “1. Principles of Law To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the prior art reference is read from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,664,516 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,664,516
• Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00027 · APJ Michael R Zecher · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 and 41–49 are unpatentable: claims 1–23 are indefinite, and claims 1–4, 6–23, and 41–49 are obvious; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “considered, including “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). There is evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge level of a person with ordinary skill in the art. CME’s expert witness, Dr. Pirrong, attests that a person with ordinary skill in the art would be an individual who possesses the following: (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, or another quantitative field such as mathematics, statistics, economics, or finance; (2) two to five years of work experience in any one of the aforementioned areas; and (3) an understanding of the operation of markets for financial instruments, including computerized and electronic markets. Ex. 1005 ¶ 44.” slip op. at 24

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by 5th Market’s proposed claim construction of the claim phrase “external price feed” because its construction of “outside” the network is overly narrow. 5th Market does not direct us to a disclosure in the Specification of the ’419 patent that suggests “outside” the network should be limited to a marketplace trading, but not aggregating orders for, the same securities or items as the originating CORE trading engine, or a diverse marketplace that does not trade or aggregate the same securities or items, as the originating CORE trading engine. If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be 15 “extraneous,” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We decline to adopt 5th Market’s construction of “outside” the network as the broadest reasonable interpretation, as it would import extraneous limitations into the claims, and it would be inconsistent with the Specification of the ’419 patent. 5th Market’s attempt to limit “outside” the network to the two types of marketplaces identified above is not necessary to give meaning to the claim phrase “external price feed,” and should not be read into the claims that recite this feature. We maintain that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase “external price feed” is “price data received from outside of the conditional order transaction network.” As we explained in the Decision to Institute (Dec. 20–22), this claim construction is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “external,” as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art, in light of the ’419 patent.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “When construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, 3 the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function limitation must be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor to avoid impermissible functional claiming, unless certain narrow exceptions concerning generic computer functions apply. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is, the specification must disclose “enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6” or a disclosure that can be 3 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Nonetheless, because the ’419 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (the effective date of the AIA), we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 18 expressed in any understandable terms, e.g., a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flowchart. Finisar Corp. v. The DirectTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Simply reciting a claimed function in the specification, and saying nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that such a function is performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009). According to the Specification of the ’419 patent, Table 1 includes conditions that are available for input by subscribers, viewable by other subscribers, and executed by the system’s trading engine, e.g., the CORE trading engine illustrated in Figure 1. Ex. 1001, 17:20–23. Although the CORE trading engine is tantamount to a general purpose computer, there is no explicit disclosure that explains how the conditions included in Table 1 are used to compare orders. For instance, Table 1 includes, amongst other conditions, price, quantity, minimum quantity, cap, and a collar kill that may be used to compare orders. Id. at 17:25–18:20. Table 1, however, does not disclose a well-defined or otherwise recognizable sequence of steps that uses these conditions to compare orders. See Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384. Absent such a disclosure, we are not persuaded that the Specification of the ’419 patent discloses a specific algorithm that transforms an otherwise general purpose computer into a special purpose computer programmed to perform the recited function of “comparing.” See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340. 19 In summary, because Federal Circuit precedent dictates that the corresponding structure for performing a specialized function, as here, cannot just be a general purpose computer, the Specification of the ’419 patent fails to disclose sufficient structure for performing the recited function of “comparing.”” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “Table 1, that purportedly identify the corresponding structure for performing the recited function of “comparing.” PO Resp. 76–77 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:20–18:20; Ex. 2008 ¶ 86). 5th Market argues that these disclosures in the Specification collectively amount to a structure in the form of an algorithm that transforms an otherwise general purpose computer into a special-purpose computer programmed to perform the recited function of “comparing.” Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 87). In its Reply, CME contends that the ’419 patent does not disclose an algorithm for comparing orders, nor does it explain how a computer may be programmed to compare algorithmic orders with algorithmic or non-algorithmic orders. Pet. Reply 15. As we explained in the claim construction section above, upon reviewing the disclosures in the Specification of the ’419 patent relied upon by 5th Market in its Patent Owner Response, the Specification of the ’419 patent fails to disclose sufficient structure for performing the recited function of “comparing.” In other words, the conditions included in Table 1 of the ’419 patent, by themselves, do not set forth a well-defined or otherwise recognizable sequence of steps for comparing orders and, therefore, do not amount to a specific algorithm that transforms an otherwise general purpose computer into a special purpose computer programmed to perform the recited function of “comparing.” See Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340. Consequently, we conclude that CME has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–23, each of 21 which recites the claim phrase “means for comparing,” are indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,418,419 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,418,419
• Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00033 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 7-16 and 23-27 are unpatentable as anticipated by Paul; claims 1-6 and 17-22 were not shown unpatentable because Ratsimor was not a publicly accessible printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “endorsement.” In proffering constructions, neither party provides sufficient evidence of the ordinary meaning of “bi-lateral” or “endorsement.” We determine the ordinary meaning of the terms “bi-,”7 “lateral,”8 and “endorsement”9 collectively mean “both sides giving approval.” The use of “bi-lateral endorsement” in independent claims 7 and 23 indicate that an endorsement occurs between two parties, a subscriber and an advertiser, which is consistent with its ordinary meaning of “both sides giving 7 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 181 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “bi-” as “1. a. Two . . . b. Both . . . c. Both sides, parts, or directions”). 8 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1017 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “lateral” as “1. Of, relating to, or situated at or on the side”). 9 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 608 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “endorse” as “4. To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement”); id. (defining “endorsement” as “1. The act of endorsing”). 11 approval.” The ’679 patent provides an example of a bi-lateral endorsement in Figure 7a, which describes a bi-directional endorsement process between the subscriber and the advertiser, via an intermediary, during the enrollment process. Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 56-58. As part of an enrollment process, the advertiser decides whether to endorse a particular subscriber. Id. at col. 8, ll. 47-48. The bi-lateral endorsement is completed after the subscriber chooses at least one plan and one advertiser for endorsement. Id. at col. 8, l. 66 – col. 9, l. 3. The ’679 patent also describes examples of endorsement by an advertiser of a subscriber and endorsement by a subscriber of one or more advertisers. See id. at col. 3, ll. 39-65, col. 4, ll. 59-65. The use of bilateral endorsement in the ’679 patent is consistent with its ordinary meaning of “both sides giving approval.”” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We agree. In general, a preamble is construed as a limitation “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When the limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Notably, the preamble of independent claim 7 requires “a source communication device possessed by a subscriber,” “a destination communication device possessed by a recipient,” and “an advertisement.” The body of claim 7 recites “the source communication device,” “the subscriber,” “the destination communication device,” and “the 18 advertisement,” all of which rely on and derive antecedent basis from the preamble of claim 7. Similarly, the preamble of independent claim 23 recites “a first communication device,” “a second communication device,” and “a set of advertisers.” The body of claim 23 recites “the first communication device,” “the second communication device,” and “the set of advertisers.” Accordingly, we conclude that the preambles of independent claims 7 and 23 are entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “As an initial matter, we note that there are gaps in Petitioner’s proffered evidence—foremost is Dr. Joshi’s lack of indication that the Ratsimor paper was downloaded or otherwise disseminated, or how persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could locate the Ratsimor paper on the Departmental website or otherwise locate an issued Technical Report in November 2003. 25” slip op. at 25

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

    “Based on the above disclosures of Paul, we find that the direct e-mail campaign and a “refer-a-friend” campaign are not different methods, but are different tool options provided by the campaign manager computer program in the e-mail communications system disclosed by Paul. Accordingly, as different tool options of the campaign manager in the e-mail communications system, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the direct e-mail campaign tool option was to be used in conjunction with the “refer-a-friend” campaign tool option to send “refer-a-friend” e-mail message incentives to a subset of the members based on member demographic characteristics. To determine otherwise would require a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading Paul, would come to the conclusion that the only option would be to send a “refer-a-friend” e-mail to all members. We do not find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Paul to be so restrictive. Rather, Paul’s disclosure of the campaign manager computer program having multiple tool options to develop marketing campaigns is analogous to a reference disclosing two functions of a word processing program—creating a document and saving a document. One skilled in the art would understand the word processing program reference to disclose how to use those functions together to create and save a document.14 Cf. Transcript 67:9 – 68:11.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,155,679 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,155,679
• Cyanotech Corporation v. The Board Of Trustees Of The University Of IllinoisSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00404 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 and 26 are unpatentable over Grangaud and/or Grangaud with Dowling; claims 15, 21, and 22 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “treating damage caused by injury or disease (Resp. 14–15), however, the specification does not contain any indication that the patentee intended to act as his own lexicographer clearly defining “disease” and “damage” in the same manner. For example, the specification does not clearly convey the patentee’s intent to appoint a special meaning to the phrase “retinal damage or retinal disease.” We must determine, therefore, the ordinary meaning of “disease” and “damage” as used in these claims to one of skill in the art in light of the specification and prosecution history. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. In this regard, the term “damage,” as used in the specification, refers to damage resulting from injury or disease. Ex. 1001, 1:14–19. The specification does not equate damage and disease, but provides that damage may be caused by disease. Id. The meaning of the term disease, however, refers to conditions that may cause damage (such as degenerative eye disease), and are treatable themselves. Id. at 15:36–40. That is, the underlying cause of the damage is treatable, not just the damage alone. The University does not direct our attention to anything in the specification or prosecution that would clearly alter the ordinary meaning of “disease” and “damage.” Resp. 14–16. In view of the above, we do not construe “retinal damage” and “retinal disease” as a single concept. The evidence of record does not support a finding that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer by clearly defining the claim terms “damage” and “disease” in the same manner. In our Decision to Institute, we adopted the dictionary definition of “disease” and construed the term as “[a] morbid entity ordinarily characterized by two or more of the following criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations.” Dec. 8–9; see, Pet. ’401 (citing Ex. 1040). We adopted the dictionary definition of “damage” and construed the term as “[h]arm, diminution, or destruction of an organ, body part, system, or function.” Id. We maintain these constructions for “disease” and “damage” as they are consistent with the use of these terms in the Specification. “Retinal damage” refers to damage to the retina and “retinal disease” refers to disease of the retina. The phrase “retinal damage or retinal disease” refers to either retinal damage or retinal disease.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “To establish inherent disclosure, the evidence must show that a feature necessarily is described in the reference, and that it would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999); cf. EMI Grp. N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Theoretical mechanisms or rules of natural law that are recited in a claim, that themselves are not patentable, however, do not need to be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art for a finding of inherency.”). The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981).” slip op. at 10

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

    “As to secondary considerations, we note that factual inquiries for an obviousness determination include secondary considerations based on evaluation and crediting of objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the University’s invention, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, such a conclusion requires the finding of a nexus to establish that the evidence relied upon traces its basis to a novel element in the claim and not to something in the prior art. Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013). All types of objective evidence of nonobviousness must be shown to have nexus. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1580 (nexus generally); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (commercial success); In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (licensing); Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (copying); Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (long-felt need); and In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unexpected results). As discussed above, we conclude that claims 1, 3, and 8–12 are anticipated by Grangaud, as evidenced by Dowling. Because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982) (“[E]vidence establishing lack of all novelty in the claimed invention necessarily evidences obviousness.”); In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031 (CCPA 1979); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974). Here, Cyanotech presents substantially the same evidence for both their anticipation and obviousness challenges of claims 1, 3, 8–14, and 26. As such, and for the same reasons set forth in our anticipation analysis above, we hold that claims 1, 3, 8–14, and 26 are rendered obvious by Grangaud, alone or in combination with Dowling. Because we have determined that claims 1, 3, and 8–12 lack a novel feature with which to establish a nexus with secondary considerations, Cyanotech, as a matter of law, cannot establish a nexus. In re Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068 (Objective evidence that results from something that is not “both claimed and novel in the claim” lacks a nexus to the merits of the invention.). As to claims 2 and 4–7, the University has not directed any arguments to these claims specifically and has not made any attempts to establish a nexus between the presented objective evidence of nonobviousness and these claims. Thus, we maintain our unopposed determination that the specific doses and routes of administration recited in these claims are predictable variations within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and are not persuaded by the objective evidence that claims 2 and 4–7 are nonobvious.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “of all novelty in the claimed invention necessarily evidences obviousness.”); In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031 (CCPA 1979); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974). Here, Cyanotech presents substantially the same evidence for both their anticipation and obviousness challenges of claims 1, 3, 8–14, and 26. As such, and for the same reasons set forth in our anticipation analysis above, we hold that claims 1, 3, 8–14, and 26 are rendered obvious by Grangaud, alone or in combination with Dowling. Because we have determined that claims 1, 3, and 8–12 lack a novel feature with which to establish a nexus with secondary considerations, Cyanotech, as a matter of law, cannot establish a nexus. In re Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068 (Objective evidence that results from something that is not “both claimed and novel in the claim” lacks a nexus to the merits of the invention.). As to claims 2 and 4–7, the University has not directed any arguments to these claims specifically and has not made any attempts to establish a nexus between the presented objective evidence of nonobviousness and these claims. Thus, we maintain our unopposed determination that the specific doses and routes of administration recited in these claims are predictable variations within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and are not persuaded by the objective evidence that claims 2 and 4–7 are nonobvious. In view of the above, we conclude that Cyanotech has demonstrated the unpatentability of claims 1–14 and 26 by a preponderance of the evidence. (2) Claim 15 Claim 15 depends from claim 14. As discussed above, we conclude that the preponderance of evidence of record demonstrates that neuronal damage to a retina is inherent to the condition of vitamin A deficiency-induced xerophthalmia. The question before us with regard to claim 15, however, is whether” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,527,533 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,527,533
• Cyanotech Corporation v. The Board Of Trustees Of The University Of IllinoisSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2014 · IPR2013-00401 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 and 26 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grangaud and obvious over Grangaud alone or with Dowling; claims 15, 21, and 22 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “treating damage caused by injury or disease (Resp. 14–15), however, the specification does not contain any indication that the patentee intended to act as his own lexicographer clearly defining “disease” and “damage” in the same manner. For example, the specification does not clearly convey the patentee’s intent to appoint a special meaning to the phrase “retinal damage or retinal disease.” We must determine, therefore, the ordinary meaning of “disease” and “damage” as used in these claims to one of skill in the art in light of the specification and prosecution history. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. In this regard, the term “damage,” as used in the specification, refers to damage resulting from injury or disease. Ex. 1001, 1:14–19. The specification does not equate damage and disease, but provides that damage may be caused by disease. Id. The meaning of the term disease, however, refers to conditions that may cause damage (such as degenerative eye disease), and are treatable themselves. Id. at 15:36–40. That is, the underlying cause of the damage is treatable, not just the damage alone. The University does not direct our attention to anything in the specification or prosecution that would clearly alter the ordinary meaning of “disease” and “damage.” Resp. 14–16. In view of the above, we do not construe “retinal damage” and “retinal disease” as a single concept. The evidence of record does not support a finding that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer by clearly defining the claim terms “damage” and “disease” in the same manner. In our Decision to Institute, we adopted the dictionary definition of “disease” and construed the term as “[a] morbid entity ordinarily characterized by two or more of the following criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations.” Dec. 8–9; see, Pet. ’401 (citing Ex. 1040). We adopted the dictionary definition of “damage” and construed the term as “[h]arm, diminution, or destruction of an organ, body part, system, or function.” Id. We maintain these constructions for “disease” and “damage” as they are consistent with the use of these terms in the Specification. “Retinal damage” refers to damage to the retina and “retinal disease” refers to disease of the retina. The phrase “retinal damage or retinal disease” refers to either retinal damage or retinal disease.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “In view of the above, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence presented by Cyanotech demonstrates that retinal damage is inherent to the condition of vitamin A deficiency-induced xerophthalmia. Grangaud’s animals were kept on a vitamin A-deficient diet for about 2 months (Ex. 1002, 43), and Dowling supports a conclusion that animals kept on such a diet would have suffered retinal damage. Ex. 1026, 88–89. Dowling also supports a finding that restoration of vitamin A to the diet could reverse the damage caused by a vitamin A deficiency. Id. at 94–96. Grangaud did not administer vitamin A itself, but rather administered astaxanthin. Astaxanthin, however, is capable of being converted to vitamin A in rats, which then would be available to correct the retinal damage caused by a vitamin A-deficient diet, as well as treat ocular lesions resulting from xerophthalmia, thereby improving the vision of the rats. Pet., 14-16; Ex. 1002, 44; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 42–43 and 51; Ex. 1045, 60 and 160. As such, the inherent action of astaxanthin would have resulted in improved vision in Grangaud’s animal model.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundInherency not foundMixed

    “In view of the above, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence presented by Cyanotech demonstrates that retinal damage is inherent to the condition of vitamin A deficiency-induced xerophthalmia. Grangaud’s animals were kept on a vitamin A-deficient diet for about 2 months (Ex. 1002, 43), and Dowling supports a conclusion that animals kept on such a diet would have suffered retinal damage. Ex. 1026, 88–89. Dowling also supports a finding that restoration of vitamin A to the diet could reverse the damage caused by a vitamin A deficiency. Id. at 94–96. Grangaud did not administer vitamin A itself, but rather administered astaxanthin. Astaxanthin, however, is capable of being converted to vitamin A in rats, which then would be available to correct the retinal damage caused by a vitamin A-deficient diet, as well as treat ocular lesions resulting from xerophthalmia, thereby improving the vision of the rats. Pet., 14-16; Ex. 1002, 44; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 42–43 and 51; Ex. 1045, 60 and 160. As such, the inherent action of astaxanthin would have resulted in improved vision in Grangaud’s animal model.” slip op. at 13

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

    “of all novelty in the claimed invention necessarily evidences obviousness.”); In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031 (CCPA 1979); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974). Here, Cyanotech presents substantially the same evidence for both their anticipation and obviousness challenges of claims 1, 3, 8–14, and 26. As such, and for the same reasons set forth in our anticipation analysis above, we hold that claims 1, 3, 8–14, and 26 are rendered obvious by Grangaud, alone or in combination with Dowling. Because we have determined that claims 1, 3, and 8–12 lack a novel feature with which to establish a nexus with secondary considerations, Cyanotech, as a matter of law, cannot establish a nexus. In re Kao, 639 F.3d at 1068 (Objective evidence that results from something that is not “both claimed and novel in the claim” lacks a nexus to the merits of the invention.). As to claims 2 and 4–7, the University has not directed any arguments to these claims specifically and has not made any attempts to establish a nexus between the presented objective evidence of nonobviousness and these claims. Thus, we maintain our unopposed determination that the specific doses and routes of administration recited in these claims are predictable variations within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and are not persuaded by the objective evidence that claims 2 and 4–7 are nonobvious. In view of the above, we conclude that Cyanotech has demonstrated the unpatentability of claims 1–14 and 26 by a preponderance of the evidence. (2) Claim 15 Claim 15 depends from claim 14. As discussed above, we conclude that the preponderance of evidence of record demonstrates that neuronal damage to a retina is inherent to the condition of vitamin A deficiency-induced xerophthalmia. The question before us with regard to claim 15, however, is whether” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,527,533 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,527,533

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.