• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2019 · IPR2019-00152 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and maintained institution of review of claims 1–20, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for a request for rehearing of the Institution Decision is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides that, [w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Deeper, Chevron, or the principle on which those cases rest. Instead, we maintain that unlike the facts in Deeper and Chevron, the facts of the present case do not compel denying inter partes review due to considerations of efficiency. As an initial matter, in Deeper and Chevron, a reasonable likelihood of success had been shown for the challenges of only a very small proportion of the challenged claims. In Deeper, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two among 23 challenged claims. Deeper at 42–43. In Chevron, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two dependent claims among 20 challenged claims. Chevron at 11. Although we do not have a specific threshold in mind, here, there is a significantly larger portion of claim challenges for which a reasonable likelihood exists than in either Deeper or Chevron. More importantly, in our view, Patent Owner’s efficiency arguments overlook that this proceeding involves one of multiple, similar patents that Patent Owner has asserted against Petitioner, and which Petitioner has challenged in petitions for inter partes review in IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019- 00152. In these proceedings, the asserted prior art and the issues overlap. In each proceeding, Petitioner asserts the prior art references Picard, Ishihara, Tiziani, Gmitro, and Kino. Pet. 7; IPR2019-00150, Paper 3, 7–8; IPR2019-00151, 7. In IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019-00152 collectively, Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to 17 of 45 challenged claims. See Dec. on Inst. 3, 28–29 (noting a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of eight claims); IPR2019-00150, Paper 11, 3, 27 (noting reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of five claims); IPR2019-00151, Paper 10, 3, 28 (noting a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of four claims). Given that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on a significant portion of similar assertions of unpatentability of the claims of multiple, similar patents asserted by Patent Owner against Petitioner, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the efficiency considerations noted in Deeper and Chevron weigh heavily in favor of denying inter partes review of the present case.” slip op. at 5

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

    “considered the arguments and precedent presented by Patent Owner, we disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner’s proposed means-plus-function constructions must be substantively addressed in the Institution Decision. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As the Institution Decision explained, the Preliminary Response did not identify any specific reason that the differences between the parties’ proposed claim constructions would affect the ultimate analysis of the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited prior art. Dec. on Inst. 10. In particular, the Preliminary Response did not present any specific reason that the alleged teachings of the cited prior art would not meet Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions, if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions over Petitioner’s. Thus, the Preliminary Response’s general disagreement regarding the correct construction of the claims did not create any controversy regarding the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited references, making it unnecessary for the Institution Decision to reach a conclusion on claim construction. Thus, the Rehearing Request does not persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended the law by not construing the claims in the Institution Decision. To the extent Patent Owner later identifies any specific reason that the ultimate question of patentability is affected by specific claim construction issues, those issues can be resolved in the inter partes review. The Federal Circuit has noted expressly a lack of concern for “the Board adopting a construction in its final written decision, as the Board is free to do.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, the Board may construe claim language in its final written decision, after omitting any construction of the language in a decision to institute. TQ Delta, LLC, v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Supreme Court’s observation that Petitioner “gets to define the contours of the proceeding” addresses the Board’s prior practice of instituting inter partes review only for a subset of the claim challenges brought by a Petitioner. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354–1355. Patent Owner does not persuade us that the Supreme Court’s SAS decision requires the Board to adopt a claim construction in its institution decision. Here, having reviewed the record evidence, including the language of the claims, the Specification of the ’901 patent, and the asserted art, we found the claim constructions and prior art mapping advanced by Petitioner sufficiently viable to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. The Rehearing Request does not persuade us of error in that determination.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have placed certain components in certain relative positions, as well as how those components would have worked in those positions. The Institution Decision addressed those arguments. Inst. Dec. 25–27. The Rehearing Request does not reiterate or further explain the arguments from the Preliminary Response that Petitioner failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged the components in a certain way, or how such an arrangement would have worked. Instead, the Rehearing Request argues that the arrangement of Picard’s and Ishihara’s components proposed by Petitioner does not meet the claims. Pages 32–36 of the Preliminary Response simply did not make such an argument. For that reason alone, we find unpersuasive the Rehearing Request’s assertion that we overlooked or misapprehended arguments regarding the “illogical arrangement” of certain components. Reh’g Req. 9–13. Additionally, even if the Preliminary Response had made the arguments presented in the Rehearing Request, at this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner places at least a portion of the alleged “illumination unit” downstream of the alleged “optical system.” Instead, Petitioner’s mapping places components of the alleged “illumination unit” upstream of some components of the alleged “optical system” and downstream of one component of the alleged “optical system.” Indeed, such positioning appears in the Rehearing Request’s annotated version of Picard’s Figure 8, which shows Nipkow disk 8 upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lenses 15, 321, but downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner asserts that Nipkow disk 8 forms part of the claimed “illumination unit . . . configured to generate a plurality of incident light beams.” Reh’g Req. 9–10; Pet. 20–23. Thus, Petitioner identifies a portion of the alleged illumination unit as sitting upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lens 15, 32, while placing the same portion of the alleged illumination unit downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. This arrangement of components appears to satisfy Patent Owner’s asserted requirement that the illumination unit must create the plurality of incident light beams before the optical system can focus them. Reh’g Req. 9. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Picard’s Nipkow disk 8 generates a plurality of incident light beams and that lens 15, situated downstream of Nipkow disk 8, focuses the plurality of incident light beams. Pet. 22, 25. With Nipkow disk 8 situated upstream of lens 15, any light beam produced by Nipkow disk 8 would be generated before lens 15 receives it. Because lens 15 is part of the alleged optical system, to the extent lens 15 focuses light beams from Nipkow disk 8, it seemingly would follow that the optical system focuses the plurality of incident light beams after Nipkow disk 8 (the alleged module) generates them.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,615,901
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2019 · IPR2019-00151 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and maintained institution of inter partes review of claims 15–30, finding no error in its institution decision.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Decision is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), which provides that, [w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Deeper, Chevron, or the principle on which those cases rest. Instead, we maintain that unlike the facts in Deeper and Chevron, the facts of the present case do not compel denying inter partes review due to considerations of efficiency. As an initial matter, in Deeper and Chevron, a reasonable likelihood of success had been shown for the challenges of only a very small proportion of the challenged claims. In Deeper, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two among 23 challenged claims. Deeper at 42–43. In Chevron, there was a reasonable likelihood of success for only two dependent claims among 20 challenged claims. Chevron at 11. Although we do not have a specific threshold in mind, here, there is a larger portion of claim challenges for which a reasonable likelihood exists than in either Deeper or Chevron. More importantly, in our view, Patent Owner’s efficiency arguments overlook that this proceeding involves one of multiple, similar patents that Patent Owner has asserted against Petitioner, and which Petitioner has challenged in petitions for inter partes review in IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019- 00152. In these proceedings, the asserted prior art and the issues overlap. In each proceeding, Petitioner asserts the prior art references Picard, Ishihara, Tiziani, Gmitro, and Kino. Pet. 7; IPR2019-00150, Paper 3, 7–8; IPR2019-00152, Paper 3, 7. In IPR2019-00150, IPR2019-00151, and IPR2019-00152 collectively, Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to 17 of 45 challenged claims. See Dec. on Inst. 3, 28 (noting reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of four claims); IPR2019-00150, Paper 11, 3, 27 (noting reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of five claims); IPR2019-00152, Paper 11, 3, 28–29 (noting a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on challenge of eight claims). Given that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on a significant portion of similar assertions of unpatentability of the claims of multiple, similar patents asserted by Patent Owner against Petitioner, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the efficiency considerations noted in Deeper and Chevron weigh heavily in favor of denying inter partes review of the present case.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Patent Owner does not persuade us that we misapprehended the law. Having considered the arguments and precedent presented by Patent Owner, we disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner’s proposed means-plus-function constructions must be substantively addressed in the Institution Decision. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As the Institution Decision explained, the Preliminary Response did not identify any specific reason that the differences between the parties’ proposed claim constructions would affect the ultimate analysis of the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited prior art. Dec. on Inst. 10. In particular, the Preliminary Response did not present any specific reason that the alleged teachings of the cited prior art would not meet Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions, if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed claim constructions over Petitioner’s. Thus, the Preliminary Response’s general disagreement regarding the correct construction of the claims did not create any controversy regarding the patentability of the challenged claims over the cited references, making it unnecessary for the Institution Decision to reach a conclusion on claim construction. Thus, the Rehearing Request does not persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended the law by not construing the claims in the Institution Decision. To the extent Patent Owner later identifies any specific reason that the ultimate question of patentability is affected by specific claim construction issues, those issues can be resolved in the inter partes review. The Federal Circuit has noted expressly a lack of concern for “the Board adopting a construction in its final written decision, as the Board is free to do.” SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, the Board may construe claim language in its final written decision, after omitting any construction of the language in a decision to institute. TQ Delta, LLC, v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Supreme Court’s observation that Petitioner “gets to define the contours of the proceeding” addresses the Board’s prior practice of instituting inter partes review only for a subset of the claim challenges brought by a Petitioner. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354–1355. Patent Owner does not persuade us that the Supreme Court’s SAS decision requires the Board to adopt a claim construction in its institution decision. . Here, having reviewed the record evidence, including the language of the claims, the Specification of the ’448 patent, and the asserted art, we found the claim constructions and prior art mapping advanced by Petitioner sufficiently viable to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. The Rehearing Request does not persuade us of error in that determination.” slip op. at 7

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

    “presented in the Rehearing Request, at this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner places at least a portion of the alleged “illumination unit” downstream of the alleged “optical system.” Instead, Petitioner’s mapping places components of the alleged “illumination unit” upstream of some components of the alleged “optical system” and downstream of one component of the alleged “optical system.” Indeed, such positioning appears in the Rehearing Request’s annotated version of Picard’s Figure 8, which shows Nipkow disk 8 upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lenses 15, 321, but downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner asserts that Nipkow disk 8 forms part of the claimed “illumination unit . . . configured to generate a plurality of incident light beams.” Reh’g Req. 9–10; Pet. 18–21. Thus, Petitioner identifies a portion of the alleged illumination unit as sitting upstream of the alleged optical system’s fiber optic bundle 30 and lens 15, 32, while placing the same portion of the alleged illumination unit downstream of the alleged optical system’s separator cube 11. This arrangement of components appears to satisfy Patent Owner’s asserted requirement that the illumination unit must create the plurality of incident light beams before the optical system can focus them. Reh’g Req. 9. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Picard’s Nipkow disk 8 generates a plurality of incident light beams and that lens 15, situated downstream of Nipkow disk 8, focuses the plurality of incident light beams. Pet. 20–21, 23–24. With Nipkow disk 8 situated upstream of lens 15, any light beam produced by Nipkow disk 8 would be generated before lens 15 receives it. Because lens 15 is part of the alleged optical system, to the extent lens 15 focuses light beams from Nipkow disk 8, it seemingly would follow that the optical system focuses the plurality of incident light beams after Nipkow disk 8 (the alleged module) generates them. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that it was an abuse of discretion to institute review of claim 15 based on the arrangement of components proposed by 1 Although Patent Owner’s annotated version of Picard’s Figure 8 does not identify Picard’s lens 15 as part of the alleged optical system, the Petition asserts that it forms part of the optical system and serves to focus the plurality of incident light beams. Pet. 23–24. Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument rests on a claim interpretation that requires that the claimed “optical system” be positioned, in its entirety, downstream of the claimed “illumination unit.” At this stage, neither party has fully addressed the correctness of Patent Owner’s claim interpretation. We, therefore, do not decide at this stage whether Patent Owner’s claim interpretation is correct and make no final determination as to whether Petitioner’s proposed arrangement of components falls within the scope of the claim.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,638,448
• Haag-Streit AG v. Eidolon Optical, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · IPR2018-01311 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–10, 14–16, and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references did not disclose an LED itself generating blue light energy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating that it “appear[ed] consistent with the record at th[at] stage of the proceeding.” Dec. Inst. 6. Patent Owner does not address or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Petitioner did not further address this issue in the Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. We continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 7

  • ExcludeOther

    “As discussed above (see supra § II.C.3.a), to resolve the dispute between the parties here, we need not make a determination one way or the other regarding Patent Owner’s assertion as to the specific amount of power necessary to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce. Instead, the outcome here follows from the determination that Petitioner (who has the overall burden of persuasion as to unpatentability) has not persuasively established the existence, as of February 5, 1992, of a blue LED having sufficient power output to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as to Exhibit 2014 as moot because we need not rely on that exhibit (or the specific statement highlighted by Petitioner) in this Decision. See TPG 79–80.” slip op. at 43

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “commercially available by CREE, Inc. in 1992” and asserts that “Patent Owner’s arguments are wrong in that blue LEDs having sufficient output power to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce existed in 1992 at the time of Longobardi.” Pet. Reply 28, 32. When asked, during the oral hearing, for evidentiary support for these statements, Petitioner attempted to rely on Exhibit 2024. See Tr. 13:14–14:18 (counsel for Petitioner generally discussing Exhibit 2024 as potential support). That exhibit, however, was not discussed or relied on in either of Petitioner’s briefs. Id. at 38:22–39:20 (counsel for Petitioner discussing Exhibit 2024, but also acknowledging that it was not cited in either brief). We will not further consider Petitioner’s untimely argument as to Exhibit 2024. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that the “Board was obligated to dismiss [the petitioner’s] untimely argument . . . raised for the first time during oral argument”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) 85–86 (Nov. 2019) (discussing how, at the oral hearing, a party “may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. Petitioner did not identify any other record support for the two assertions as to the alleged state of the art in 1992.” slip op. at 30

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Longobardi as implicitly disclosing the presence of a blue LED is that, as argued by Patent Owner, none of the declaration testimony of Dr. Jiao supports that position. See PO Sur-reply 5 (“Petitioner lacks evidence that Longobardi implicitly or inherently teaches an LED sufficient to generate blue light energy itself as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s expert does not testify as to this fact.” (emphasis added)), 7 (“Petitioner fails to provide any expert testimony . . . that Longobardi teaches a blue light energy created by the LED.”). Indeed, in the entire section of the Reply Brief discussing why Longobardi allegedly implicitly discloses a blue LED, Petitioner never cites to Dr. Jiao’s testimony as evidence of how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the highlighted passages. See Pet. Reply 18–22; see also PO Sur-reply 14 (“Petitioner’s attorney arguments that Longobardi implicitly discloses the limitation of at least one LED sufficient to generate blue light energy itself as required by claim 1 are unreasonable.”). “Attorney argument is not evidence.” Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing this aspect of Icon Health in the context of an appeal from an inter partes review). In addition, the testimony in Dr. Jiao’s Reply Declaration that is cited in Petitioner’s Reply (in the part discussing the state of the art of blue LEDs “[i]n 1992” (Pet. Reply 26)) does not actually support Petitioner on the ultimate factual issue here. See Pet. Reply 26–32 (citing Jiao Reply. Decl. ¶¶ 11–21). Instead, most of Dr. Jiao’s testimony in these paragraphs summarizes and addresses Dr. Lebby’s position on the 1-milliwatt issue (discussing Exhibits 1021 and 1022). See Jiao Reply Decl. ¶¶ 11–20. After that discussion, Dr. Jiao concludes with a paragraph taking the position that one of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the invention would have found that Longobardi teaches and suggests the use of a blue LED having sufficient power to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce.” Id. ¶ 21. None of Dr. Jiao’s testimony, however, actually addresses the state of the art of blue LEDs in 1992, which, as acknowledged by Petitioner, is the relevant point in time to assess the alleged implicit disclosures in Longobardi.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,547,394 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,547,394
• Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  • 101 substituteMixed

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,134,087
• Anheuser-Busch Inbev S.A. And Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Heineken Supply Chain B.V. (F.K.A. Heineken Technical Services B.V.)Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2019 · IPR2019-01151 · APJ John E Schneider · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1, 3, 7, and 10 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review for that reason.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Master’s degree in mechanical engineering or product design and/or four years of relevant experience designing fluid dispensing systems. Pet. 14. Patent Owner disputes this definition of the level or ordinary skill in the art but does not offer its own definition. Prelim Resp. 22 n.4. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Though Dr. Slocum contends that the shoulders of the valves depicted in Figures 17–20 and 21–24 are rigid because they are strong enough to resist fluid flow (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134 and 132, respectively), Dr. Slocum does not provide adequate reasoning or evidence to support this opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider shoulders that deform in the same manner as a flexible tube, and that are depicted as being integral with and made of the same material as the flexible tube, to nevertheless be rigid. For example, Dr. Slocum does not cite any extrinsic or intrinsic evidence that one of skill in the art would equate the ability to resist fluid flow with rigidity. Nor does Dr. Slocum or Petitioner propose any construction of the claim term “rigid” that would adequately distinguish the admittedly flexible pinch valves of Jeans.2 On the current record, and for the reasons discussed above, we find that Dr. Slocum’s testimony that the valve depicted in Jeans’s Figures 17–24 is made of a rigid material is not adequately supported. Accordingly, and based on the entire record presently before us, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenge based on the combination of Timmermans and Figures 17–24 of Jeans.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the ball valve and slit valve configurations shown in Figures 17– 24 of Jeans operate by pinching the valve to open it. Ex. 1005, 18–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–135; Ex. 2020, 1180. As discussed above, Patent Owner argues that the ability to be opened by a pinching indicates that the valves disclosed in Figures 17–24 of Jeans are made of a flexible material and do not meet the limitation of being composed on a rigid material. Prelim. Resp. 34–35. We note that this assertion is consistent with the position of Petitioner and its declarant, Dr. Slocum, that pinch valves like those shown in Timmermans and Van Der Meer are not rigid. See Pet. 26–27, 33; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99, 120. Jeans explicitly states that Figures 17–20 and 21–24 depict two different embodiments in which “the flexible tube of the container” is “designed to act as a valve which is open and closed between pinched and unpinched conditions, or vice versa.” Ex. 1005, 18 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 12

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,188,751
• Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01138 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12–45 are unpatentable: claims 1–10, 12–15, 17–32, 34–43, and 45 as obvious over Rothbaum and Denison; claims 16, 33, and 44 over Rothbaum, Denison, and Ott.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Here, the same RPI issue was raised in the prior decisions, the RPI issue was actually litigated by the parties (replete with discovery and dispositive motions on this issue), and our determination that the RPI identification was proper was essential to the prior decisions (especially because Patent Owner has sought to have the proceedings terminated due to an allegedly improper identification of RPIs). As such, we agree with the parties’ assertion that collateral estoppel applies to the RPI issue in this case, and we conclude that no exception to collateral estoppel applies. Thus, we determine that collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of the RPI issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the 1900 IPR Decision and in the Order on Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate from IPR2017-00344, we determine that Petitioner identified all RPIs in this proceeding, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Thaine Allison III, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a four year technical degree (e.g. B.S. engineering) with a minimum of three years of experience in using, provisioning, designing or creating, or supervising the design or creation, of such theft prevention devices, and other related security devices. Extended experience in the industry could substitute for a technical degree. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known how to research the technical literature in fields relating to theft prevention, including in retail and other environments, as well as security in general. Also, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] may have worked as part of a multidisciplinary team and drawn upon not only his or her own skills, but also taken advantage of certain specialized skills of others in the team, e.g., to solve a given problem. For example, designers, engineers (e.g., mechanical or electrical), and computer scientists or other computer programmers may have been part of a team. Ex. 1019 ¶ 20; see Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 18–21). Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of Mr. Allison, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art set forth in the Decision on Institution, which is that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a four-year technical degree or equivalent experience with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in the field of theft prevention devices or related security devices. Dec. on Inst. 10; see also PO Resp. 17–18 (agreeing with statement of level of ordinary skill in the Decision on Institution). We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis below.” slip op. at 6

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

    “usable in only a single retail store,” “unique to the single retail store and the programming station,” “a ‘housing’ with ‘a port,’” “logic control circuit,” and “‘invalidating’ the ‘key.’” Pet. 8–14. Patent Owner seeks construction of “single security code” and “invalidates the single security code,” and Patent Owner provides arguments responsive to Petitioner’s proposed construction of “usable in only a single retail store.” PO Resp. 12–17. Based on the issues before us, we discern a need to provide express construction for “single security code,” “unique to the single retail store and the programming station,” and “invalidating the single security code.” No other term requires express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor slip op. at 8

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

    “Id. at 38. Petitioner responds by arguing that Patent Owner is not addressing the combination proposed in the Petition, which is “modifying Rothbaum’s system (used in a retail store) to have an electronic-key system instead of a mechanical-key system. It isn’t a vending machine.” Reply 4. Thus, Petitioner’s argument focuses on incorporating the teachings regarding Denison’s key into the retail security system of Rothbaum. Therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments that are directed to the features of Denison’s vending machines are not responsive to the proposed combination because the vending machine is not part of the proposed modified system. Mr. Allison’s testimony supports Petitioner by explaining that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious that a retail store employing the modified Rothbaum system would not share or use the system (or individual parts of the system, for example, the programming station / “external computing device,” the electronic keys, and the security device / “strip or housing 12”) with another retail store because doing so would compromise the integrity of the security system. Ex. 1019 ¶ 116. We credit Mr. Allison’s testimony and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve security by using Denison’s operation limits to limit the use of the security code to a single store because such a limit would reduce the possibility that unauthorized individuals would gain access to the code by, for example, obtaining a key from one store and using it in another store. See Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 113, 116. We determine that the findings made in our analysis of claim 1 of the ’762 patent along with our findings regarding the “usable in only a single retail store” limitation also support a finding of unpatentability of claim 17 of the ’472 patent. We are careful to view the claim as a whole and not just its constituent parts. We determine that the findings noted above as to prior related cases along with the findings we make in this Decision as to the disputed limitation are sufficient to establish the unpatentability of claim 17 as a whole. The prior findings were essential to determining the patentability of the prior challenged claims and the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate those claims. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 17 of the ’472 patent would have been obvious over Rothbaum and Denison. As noted above, our analysis equally applies to claims 1 and 39 of the ’472 patent. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 17, and 39 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,659,472 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,659,472
• Charter Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2019-01135 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–53 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it will succeed in its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sampsell and Yosuke.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field with at least five years of experience or research in interactive systems applicable to digital television, including VOD for cable and Internet delivery.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (“Almeroth Dec.”) ¶¶ 44–46. Patent Owner does not offer a definition of the level of ordinary skill, but reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 20. Petitioner’s commensurate with the subject matter for the ’7907 patent, for purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Having reviewed the claims and the specification of the ’7907 patent, we determine that the phrase “video-on-demand” in the preamble is necessary to give life and meaning to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]f the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.”). The difference between watching television and watching a video on demand is a difference in kind, rendering a video-on-demand system different from a non-video-on-demand system. While a person watching television can change channels and thus in some sense selects video content, such video content is being distributed regardless of whether the user selects specifically selects it.1 Because of that nature, the user also has control over the playback of the video content, such as pausing and stopping. Although the dependent claims more clearly demonstrate the on-demand nature of the video content (e.g., with the menu and control buttons), only the preamble in the independent claims provides the clue as to this context.2 Thus, the preamble serves to provide the framework necessary to understand the body of the claims, and is limiting.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner

    “Owner’s proposed construction, i.e., plain and ordinary meaning or “a signal reflecting viewer control” and instead construed “view control signal” to mean “a viewer control signal generated and processed without the involvement of a set-top box for remote control of the video-on-demand system.” Pet. 15. Petitioner notes that the Comcast court found the ’7907 patent does not dispute the use of a set-top box for purposes other than remote control, e.g. for the purpose of decoding a video signal and presenting it to a television. Id. n. 3. Referring to Figure 1, the Specification states “[i]n response to viewer input to the control screen, the second display 122 transfers a corresponding viewer control signal to the second communication system 112,” the second communication system 112 1 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:17–33 (instructing that, with video-on-demand, the system receives a request to view a selection from the video content library, the video is played “[i]n response to the [user’s] request,” and the user is allowed “to immediately view [the] selected video content”). 2 This is broadly recited in claim 12 to encompass the controls relevant to video-on-demand, e.g., play, pause, stop, etc. Limiting claim 1 to a video-on-demand system provides meaningful context. and “[t]he second communication interface 102 transfers the [viewer] control signal to the processing system 103.” Ex. 1001, 2:61–67. Thus, we understand the viewer control signal to be a signal generated in response to user input.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,907
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36

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

    “Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,032
• NEC Corporation / Nokia Corporation et al. v. Neptune Subsea IP LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2019 · IPR2018-01157 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto; the Chowdhury and Webb grounds, with or without Tanaka162, do not establish unpatentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each of claims 13–20 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 26

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

    “The parties submit and we agree that there is no need to construe any term to resolve the issues in this decision. See Pet. 7–9; PO Resp. 6; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6

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

    “e. Summary For the reasons described above, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to combine Yamamoto’s and Nishimoto’s teachings as asserted by Petitioner and that the combination teaches all of claim 13’s limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto.” slip op. at 21

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

    “tunable compensators is a contingent argument, applicable only if one reads claim 13 to require a certain transmission rate. PO Resp. 21–25. We do not read Petitioner’s argument as so constrained. Rather, we understand Petitioner to argue that a desire for higher transmission speeds would drive skilled artisans to use solutions such as Nishimoto’s tunable compensators, particularly in light of Nishimoto’s guidance regarding the ability to achieve high speeds with the system. See Pet. 21–23. In that regard, we agree with Petitioner that the increase in transmission rates from Yamamoto’s to Nishimoto’s disclosures would have given skilled artisans reason to consider Nishimoto’s teachings. Pet. Reply 16–18 (citing Ex. 1005 8:9–11; Ex. 1007, 12:37–39). As Petitioner points out, Nishimoto specifically discloses that higher-speed transmissions were more sensitive to dispersion. Pet. Reply 17 n.9. Thus, we find the desire for higher transmission speeds and the need for techniques such as taught by Nishimoto would have given skilled artisans reasons to combine Nishimoto’s disclosure regarding dispersion compensation with Yamamoto’s system to achieve Yamamoto’s goals regarding the dispersion maps for multiple channels. Further, Petitioner does not rest entirely on the desire for high-speed operation. Petitioner argues also that using Nishimoto’s adjustable compensators and feedback control would “yield an improved WDM system capable of automatic compensation for degradation of the optical signal waveform caused by both wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion of the optical transmission path, resulting in further reduced size and cost.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1007, 3:41–60, 4:3–58, Figs. 17, 20, 21), 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1007, Abstract, 3:37–40, 6:56–64, 7:53–56, 11:41–46, 17:53–55, 17:59–60; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–115); accord id. at 14 (quoting Ex. 1007, 3:19–25). Patent Owner recognizes that basis for the combination but argues that the record lacks evidence to support Petitioner’s claim of reduced size and cost. PO Resp. 25–26. Patent Owner does not contest that the modification would give Yamamoto’s system the ability to automatically compensate for signal degradation from dispersion. Nishimoto discloses that as transmission speeds increase, “changes in wavelength dispersion characteristics due to temperature changes of optical fiber; and the influence by polarization mode dispersion” both “can not be neglected,” therefore requiring a system for automatically compensating for wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion,” as taught by Nishimoto. Ex. 1007, 1:34–41. We find that a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the combination because the system would gain capability for automatic compensation. Regarding reduced size and cost resulting from the combination, Patent Owner does not provide any contrary evidence and we conclude that Nishimoto’s statements regarding the benefit of its invention also would have motivated skilled artisans to make the combination. See Ex. 1007, 3:17–26 (“to thereby provide a dispersion compensating apparatus of reduced sizes at a reduced cost”).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,351,798 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,351,798
• Procon Analytics, LLC v. Spireon, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2019 · PGR2019-00051 · APJ John P Pinkerton · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–14 because the Petition did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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). Each element of the challenged claim must be found, either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). While 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). Thus, the dispositive question is whether one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference. Eli Lilly v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor–UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

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

    “A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”). Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “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). Each element of the challenged claim must be found, either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). While 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). Thus, the dispositive question is whether one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference. Eli Lilly v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor–UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “is conclusory and not supported by the evidence. Prelim. Resp. 32, 37–40. Petitioner’s argument relies on Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony, Jefferies, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 28. Dr. Wilhelm testifies that “[c]onventional vehicle inventory management systems associate information with a particular identifier; the systems are agnostic as to whether that identifier represents a financial institution or dealer.” Ex. 1029 ¶ 73. Based on this testimony, Petitioner argues “it does not matter whether that identifier represents a bank or dealer.” Pet. 28. Petitioner then argues Jefferies teaches that a location device may be marked as “available/in inventory” to be associated with a vehicle. Id. Finally, Petitioner argues that, in view of these teachings, a person of ordinary skill “would have sought to manage various types of vehicle inventories for several types of owners, including dealers.” Id. As stated, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that the “ownership” requirement would have been obvious is conclusory and not supported by the evidence of record. Initially, we note that Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony concerning conventional vehicle inventory management systems is conclusory and unsupported by factual evidence. Thus, we give little, if any, weight to Dr. Wilhelm’s opinion testimony that such systems are “agnostic” to whether equipment identifiers are associated with lending institutions or auto dealers. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “the Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations”). In any event, Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony adds nothing in this regard because, as discussed supra, Boling discloses equipment identifiers, such as UINs, are associated with the ID number of banks and auto dealers. See Ex. 1005, 6:22–26; 6:29–33.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,089,598

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.