- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2015-01442 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the asserted combinations did not disclose the claimed hand-held device.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Figure 18 illustrates use of the PCS device within the communications web of Snelling. Id. at 41:29–30. The PCS device “may be coupled to NCU 100 via an adapter 1905 that interfaces with the cellular phone 1800.” Id. at 41:30– 32. NCU 100 itself, however, is not described as being “hand-held.” Patent Owner highlights a number of factors supporting the allegation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not view NCU 100 as a device that is hand-held or even mobile in operation: its ability to be “rapidly installed in any location” (citing Ex. 1001, 54:30–32 (emphasis added)); the examples of situations in which NCU 100 could be used—trade show, construction site, emergency aid organization providing assistance after a disaster (id. at 55:4– 8); and power sources including “a dedicated battery, an electric power generator, automobile cigarette adapter, solar cells, any electro-mechanical converter” (id. at 55:13–16). Prelim. Resp. 31. Although the NCU can harness the functionality of a hand-held device to access a wireless network, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that Snelling does not identify NCU 100 as a hand-held device. Petitioner relies on certain sections of Snelling discussing the ability of NCU 100 to be made mobile, in that NCU 100 may be moved from location to location, but does not point to any evidence persuading us that NCU 100 is a hand-held device. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that NCU 100 itself is a hand-held device including the components and functionality of the hand-held device set forth in the challenged claims. Taking into account our construction of “hand-held device,” we are unpersuaded that a “hand-held device” is disclosed by the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner would prevail on its contention that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“appearance in the preamble renders it limiting. “A claim’s preamble may limit the claim when the claim drafter uses the preamble to define the subject matter of the claim.” August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “In general, a preamble limits the invention 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) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett- Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination ‘resolved only on review of the entire[ ] . . . patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.’” Id. at 808 (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “Where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (when limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention). Our consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the preamble is limiting. The term “hand-held device” appears prominently in the specification. In the “Summary of the Invention” section, the specification states: “A hand-held device for providing communication between a wide area network and a wireless local area network is provided . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:61–64 (emphasis added). This section also states: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hand-held wireless device is a cellular telephone . . . .” Ex. 1001, 4:1–2 (emphasis added). The specification uses the term “hand-held device” as the heading for Detailed Description Section II, which describes device 106 and terminals 107: “II. Hand-held Device/Terminal Hardware” in which “FIG. 2 illustrates embodiments of terminals 107 and device 106.” Id. at 6:36–38. Rather than glossing over the role of the hand-held device in the overall invention, other portions of the specification provide additional details about the hand-held nature of the claimed device. See, e.g., id. at Abstract (identifying a cellular telephone), 6:16–19 (identifying different embodiments of the present invention), 6:37–59 (discussing the hand-held device with reference to Fig. 2), 14:23–15:38 (discussing usage scenarios including a cellular telephone as the hand-held device). The term “hand-held device” appears prominently in the claims as well. The challenged claims all are directed to a device, rather than a method or a system; in each case, the device is a hand-held device. The term “handheld device” recites a structural limitation of the claim, in that the “hand-held” aspect of the device is a dimensional, physical restriction on the size of the device. The limitations in all of the claims rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, in that they are housed within a hand-held device, which limits the size and adaptations required of the remaining limitations in the claims. Every claim depending from claim 1 recites “[t]he hand-held device of claim 1.” Ex. 1001, 17:8–18:47. Thus, we determine the use of “hand-held device” in the preamble of the challenged claims is limiting, in that it denotes a structural limitation of the claimed device.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Having determined that the term “hand-held device” is limiting, we turn to the construction of the term. Petitioner urges that the term be construed “broadly enough to encompass a mobile device for enabling communication between one or more devices connected to one or more cellular networks and one or more devices connected to a wireless local area network.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner, although urging that no additional construction is needed, states the plain meaning of the term “hand-held device” is “a device that is hand-held, i.e., a device that that is designed to be held and operated in a person’s hand.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction, namely, “a device that is designed to be held and operated in a person’s hand.”” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Figure 18 illustrates use of the PCS device within the communications web of Snelling. Id. at 41:29–30. The PCS device “may be coupled to NCU 100 via an adapter 1905 that interfaces with the cellular phone 1800.” Id. at 41:30– 32. NCU 100 itself, however, is not described as being “hand-held.” Patent Owner highlights a number of factors supporting the allegation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not view NCU 100 as a device that is hand-held or even mobile in operation: its ability to be “rapidly installed in any location” (citing Ex. 1001, 54:30–32 (emphasis added)); the examples of situations in which NCU 100 could be used—trade show, construction site, emergency aid organization providing assistance after a disaster (id. at 55:4– 8); and power sources including “a dedicated battery, an electric power generator, automobile cigarette adapter, solar cells, any electro-mechanical converter” (id. at 55:13–16). Prelim. Resp. 31. Although the NCU can harness the functionality of a hand-held device to access a wireless network, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that Snelling does not identify NCU 100 as a hand-held device. Petitioner relies on certain sections of Snelling discussing the ability of NCU 100 to be made mobile, in that NCU 100 may be moved from location to location, but does not point to any evidence persuading us that NCU 100 is a hand-held device. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that NCU 100 itself is a hand-held device including the components and functionality of the hand-held device set forth in the challenged claims. Taking into account our construction of “hand-held device,” we are unpersuaded that a “hand-held device” is disclosed by the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner would prevail on its contention that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,295,532 - PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01479 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he use of the term ‘backlight’ rather than simply ‘light’ indicates that something is being illuminated from behind.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s proposed constructions (Pet. 13–16) are unreasonably broad insofar as they do not account for the use of the term “backlight.” We also agree with Patent Owner (see id.) that it is clear in the context of the ’833 patent that the recited backlights are in a liquid crystal display apparatus. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (words used in a claim are not construed in a “lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings”); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976)). Petitioner, and its expert Dr. Silzars, recognize in their statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art that the relevant art here is “display technologies.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. Notably, however, despite Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Silzars’ opinions that “[t]he alleged invention boils down to a method for minimizing the electrical noise generated when simultaneously driving multiple lights,” that the “‘liquid crystal display’ modifier” in the preambles of the challenged claims “merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention” (Pet. 20–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–59), and that “there is no structure that is specific to LCDs recited in the body of any of the claims,” neither Petitioner nor Dr. Silzars identifies any context in which backlights would be employed by those of ordinary skill in the art of display technologies, other than in an LCD. Accordingly, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “backlight” is “a lamp or set of lamps that illuminates a liquid crystal display from behind.” Because the claims already explicitly define the relationship between the “first backlight” and the “second backlight”—for example, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the second backlight is “driven simultaneously with said first backlight” and “ha[s] an oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight”—we discern no need to provide separate interpretations of “first backlight” and “second backlight.” We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to limit the “second backlight” to include “all remaining lamps of the . . . apparatus that are not in the first backlight.” Because independent claims 1 and 16 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” those claims do not exclude additional, unrecited elements and method steps, respectively. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03 (9th ed., Rev. 07.2015 Nov. 2015). 2. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“B. Anticipation and Obviousness “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed[,] and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, “it 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.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)
“A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter[,] as a whole[,] would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“D. Remaining Contentions The above determination makes it unnecessary to resolve any other disputes, including Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to list all of the real parties in interest. See Prelim. Resp. 4–14; Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9; Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioners’ Reply, Paper 10.” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,417,833 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01434 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 (“the ’343 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response, Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- BurdenOther
“map each claim element to a particular teaching of an asserted reference. In particular, Patent Owner notes that, rather than state the claim language in the Petition, Petitioner provides Exhibit 1013, which breaks the claims into specific phrases and assigns each phrase a designation, e.g., 1.A, 1.B. Prelim. Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach improperly incorporates the claims by reference and that no relief can be granted unless the arguments in the Petition itself, of which the claims are an essential part, support granting the relief. Id. at 33. We agree that Petitioner’s use of an Exhibit to specify the claim elements and its failure to include the claim language anywhere in the Petition is an improper incorporation by reference. Nevertheless, although the claim language is not repeated in the Petition, the Petition contains a paragraph for most, if not all the claim element designations. Therefore, we do not dismiss the Petition on this basis alone.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“specification, neither “data parcel” nor “update data parcel” is defined explicitly in the ’343 Patent. The ’343 Patent refers to “source image data” being processed to obtain a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–6. The ’343 Patent also discloses the source image data corresponding to the series image K0 being subdivided into a regular array such that each resulting “image parcel” of the array has, for example, 64 by 64 pixel resolution, where the “image data” has a color or bit per pixel depth of 16 bits, which represents a “data parcel” size of 8 K bytes. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–11. Thus, an image parcel is an element of a source image array that defines a source image and a data parcel is data that corresponds to an image parcel. In view of this disclosure, we construe “data parcel” to mean data that corresponds to an element of a source image array. We agree that no other specific claim construction is required and we accord the claim terms their ordinary meaning as used in the ’343 Patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artReference not prior artMixed
“REFERENCES ARGUED AS NOT APPLICABLE PRIOR ART Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Potmesil (Ex. 1002) and Lindstrom (Ex. 1004) constitute applicable prior art references. Prelim. Resp. 3–12. We addressed the same arguments as those advanced by Patent Owner in this proceeding in our Decision to Institute in related proceeding Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPP2015-01432, slip op. at 10–14 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015)(Decision to Institute)3 and Microsoft corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01435, slip op. at 8–16 (PTAB Dec. XX, 2015)4. We arrive at the same result in this proceeding and find that, although Petitioner has established that Potmesil is applicable as prior art, Petitioner has not established Lindstrom is prior art that may be applied in Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,908,343 - TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01429 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 56–61 were unpatentable under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 56–61 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. B.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“1002, 1:7–23. For a claim to gain the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to that earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See, e.g., Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Satisfaction of the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, does not require the description to be literally the same as the claim language at issue. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976); In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969 (CCPA 1971). Rather, by whatever language, the specification only must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing with approval the standard in Vas Cath, and stating “the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’287 patent is prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“b) Rationale Petitioner’s rationale for the proposed modification is not persuasive. First, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to utilize Klappenbach’s housing 2 in Blank’s device to provide rain sensor functionality. Pet. 37. Then Petitioner reasons it would have been obvious to replace Klappenbach’s rain sensor with the improved functionality of Schofield’s camera that includes rain sensing capability. See id. at 43. Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select Schofield’s camera rather than the Klappenbach’s rain sensor, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount Schofield’s camera in Klappenbach’s housing. See Prelim. Resp. 32–33. Second, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s housing would advantageously seal the components of Schofield’s camera to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 38, 44–45 (citing Ex. 1513 ¶ 58). However, Schofield’s camera already is protected from such intrusions. See Ex. 1007, 3:67–4:4; Prelim. Resp. 32, 34. Third, Petitioner reasons that Klappenbach’s technique of attaching the fastening device during windshield manufacture is an advantage because the sensor is not mounted until after the motor vehicle is built. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:11–16; Ex. 1513 ¶ 58). As discussed above, Klappenbach’s device is mounted pressed against and at the angle of the windshield, while Schofield’s is mounted spaced from the windshield and horizontal. Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Klappenbach’s technique provides a manufacturing advantage for a device such as Schofield’s camera that is mounted in a different manner. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (noting this advantage is particular to a refractive rain sensor). Further, Petitioner’s reasoning is contradictory in that it touts that Schofield’s camera “advantageously eliminates the requirement for optical coupling,” yet relies upon Klappenbach’s mounting technique for optical coupling. See Ex. 1513 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,692,659 - Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien AGInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01275 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–18 were unpatentable, chiefly because the cited art did not teach the uniform-distance limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“distance between the jaw members along the length thereof,” a limitation required by all challenged claims. Both the Specification and the challenged claims of the ’284 patent require this distance when tissue is held between the jaw members. Indeed, the Specification discloses that the stop members are “positioned to control the gap distance between the opposing jaw members when the tissue is held therebetween.” Ex. 1001, 3:50–54; see also id. at Abstract (stating the same), 5:3–6 (stating the same). In addition, claim 15 recites “[a]n endoscopic bipolar forceps according to claim 12 wherein the jaw members and the non-conductive stop members are configured such that the distance between the jaw members when tissue is held therebetween is between about 0.002 inches and about 0.003 inches.” Id. at 15:21–16:3. Thus, we conclude that the challenged claims require “a 5 uniform distance between the jaw members” when tissue is held between the opposing jaw members.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner asks us to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), arguing that all but one references relied on in the Petition were considered during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 9–12. The statute allows, but does not require, the Director to deny a petition if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under the statute, an inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response filed [thereto] shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail” in the unpatentability challenge. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added). In the Petition, Petitioner does not rely on claim 2 of the ’284 patent to support, as the dissent insists, a uniform distance between the jaw members. To the contrary, when discussing claim 2, Petitioner submits that this claim limitation is (a) not supported by the disclosure of the ‘284 Patent and (b) at odds with the requirement of claim 1 (and PO’s arguments during prosecution) that “the non-conductive stop members [are] configured to maintain a uniform distance between the jaw members along the length thereof.” Providing stop members of different heights as required by this claim necessarily results in a non-uniform distance between jaw members. Pet. 26 (emphasis added). As a result, the information presented in the Petition does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail, based on claim 2 of the ’284 patent, that an “island of insulation” of unknown size and location, is sufficient to maintain a uniform distance between the jaw members. We decline to join the dissent in reforming the Petition and rely on an argument Petitioner specifically disclaimed.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Fox and Eggers ’142. Id. at 14–18. Petitioner also refers to the prior art for teaching each and every limitation of claims 1–11. Id. at 18–32. Assuming, without deciding, that Petitioner has provided sufficient rationale for combining the prior art, we nevertheless agree with Patent Owner that the combination does not teach “non-conductive stop members configured to maintain a uniform distance between the jaw members along the length thereof,” as all challenged claims require. See Prelim. Resp. 14–26.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,241,284 - Johns Manville Corporation / Johns Manville, Inc. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc. And Knauf Insulation SPRLInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · IPR2015-01598 · APJ Fred E Mckelvey · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on both § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not clearly articulate the differences or show the proposed combinations would meet the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“D. Claims 3, 16–21, 27, 34, 43, 45–49, 51–56, 63, and 73 1. Failure to articulate a clear difference Petitioner has failed to set out precise differences between Swift and the subject matter of the challenged claims. As we explained in declining to institute on Ground 2 in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2015-01402 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2015) (Paper 18, pages 12–14), failure of a petitioner to set out differences in a § 103 context complicates consideration of a petition, both for the Board and the patent owner. Due to Petitioner’s failure to articulate a clear difference between the subject matter of the challenged claims and Swift, we decline to institute an IPR trial in this case. See also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (petition identifies with particularity) and 37 C.F.R. 41.104(b)(4) (set out how claim is unpatentable).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given sufficient evidence to support a finding that it is likely that a block made from Example 3, modified by using mono-ammonium phosphate, would meet claim 27 as it depends from claim 1.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“The testimony in support of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 27 is that of Dr. Hirsekorn. Ex. 1006, ¶ 105: At the time of the purported invention of the ’089 Patent, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a monoammonium phosphate to the binder composition of Example 3 of Gogek in order to reduce the corrosivity of the binder and preserve . . . manufacturing equipment. In the continuous manufacturing process disclosed in Swift, some manufacturing equipment will be in contact with the solution at all times, amplifying the need to include a corrosion inhibitor to extend the life of the manufacturing equipment. Accordingly, in order to prevent corrosion and “decrease the cost of manufacturing bound materials” (Ex. 1003, ¶ [0073]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a mono-ammonium phosphate as disclosed in Swift to the binder of Example 3 of Gogek to inhibit corrosion. Assuming arguendo that Dr. Hirsekorn’s observations are correct, those observations at best prove that one would have found it obvious to use an ammonium phosphate in place of ammonium sulfate described in Gogek Example 3. But, those observations in no way purport to prove that use of mono-ammonium phosphate would produce a block having the characteristics of the material of claim 27 as it depends from claim 1. We believe our concern, and that of Patent Owner, is more than theoretical. Gogek indicates a preference for using ammonium sulfate. Ex. 1004, col. 1:72. Once Example 3 is replicated with a change to something that would not be the preferred embodiment, it is not unreasonable to assume that a block made according to Example 3 with ammonium phosphate would have properties that might differ from those made in accordance with Example 3 with ammonium sulfate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof. We have not been given” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,940,089 - Maxmind, Inc. v. Fraud Control Systems.Com CorporationAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 17, 2015 · CBM2015-00094 · APJ James A Worth · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against the Patent Owner and cancelled claims 1–30 after the Patent Owner requested cancellation.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“DISCUSSION A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner requests adverse judgment with cancellation of claims 1–30 of the ’942 patent. Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to the Patent Owner and cancellation of claims 1–30 of the ʼ942 patent are appropriate. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Patent Owner’s Request to Abandon Contest is granted. It is, therefore, ORDERED that adverse judgment against the Patent Owner is entered under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b); FURTHER ORDERED that this constitutes a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a); and FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,630,942 B2 be CANCELLED.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 8,630,942 - Christie Digital Systems USA, Inc. v. Cascades Projection LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01342 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner on claims 1, 17–19, 27, 28, 60, 61, 68, and 71–73 and terminated the proceeding.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed as a request for entry of adverse judgment include “[c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (37 C.F.R § 42.73(b)(2)). No claim remains to be adjudicated in this proceeding. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1, 17–19, 27, 28, 60, 61, 68, and 71–73 of the ’347 patent; and” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,688,347 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00050 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and cancelled claims 51, 52, and 55–57 of U.S. Patent No. 7,603,674 B2.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,603,674 - Hewlett-Packard Company v. Yyz LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · CBM2015-00049 · APJ Richard E Rice · CBM · Adverse judgment
The Board granted adverse judgment based on Patent Owner’s abandonment and ordered claims 22–23, 27–29 of the ’749 patent and claims 51–52, 55–57 of the ’674 patent cancelled.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), a party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for such an adverse judgment include abandonment of the contest. We find that Patent Owner’s actions and admissions, as set forth in the Motion, constitute abandonment of these CBM Proceedings, and we determine based on such abandonment that Patent Owner has requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4) in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,062,749
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.