• Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Regents Of The University Of MinnesotaRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2020 · IPR2017-01753 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Gilead’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show the Board abused its discretion or misapprehended the obviousness record.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). 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.” Id. When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). It is not an abuse of discretion to have made an analysis or conclusion with which a party disagrees. Instead, an abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 2

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

    “before us did not support Petitioner’s alleged reasons to modify the references (Dec. 16–22), nor establish a reasonable expectation of success of doing so (id. at 22–23). In reaching this conclusion, we did not rely solely on references presented by Patent Owner. Instead, we mainly relied on the express teachings of the art cited by Petitioner, including Marquez I and Marquez II. Id. at 17–20. Our plain reading of the prior art persuades us that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its patentability challenge. See Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, 856 F.3d 1019, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that the Board is not precluded “from relying on arguments made by a party and doing its job, as adjudicator, of drawing its own inferences and conclusions from those arguments, even when the result is use of the party’s submissions against it”).” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Under Rule 42.108(c), The Board’s decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Thus, under the Rule, it is only genuine issues of material fact created by testimonial evidence provided by a patent owner with its preliminary response that we view “in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2017).2 Because Patent Owner did not provide testimonial evidence in this proceeding, there is no “genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence.” Accepting Petitioner’s argument that we must always resolve any genuine dispute of material fact in the light most favorable to the petitioner would compel institution in every case where a petitioner presents unrebutted expert testimony. But a patent owner has no obligation to rebut the petitioner’s contentions or to submit an expert declaration rebutting the petitioner’s expert testimony. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.107(a) (“The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition.” (emphasis added)); 42.108(c) (“The Board’s decision will take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence.” (emphasis added)). And the Board is not required to accept every statement made by a petitioner’s expert as established fact simply because the patent owner does not submit contradictory expert testimony. Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, 966 F.3d 1334, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Instead, “it is the Board’s duty to independently assess the strength of a petitioner’s argument and evidence.” Id., see also id. (“[I]n every case, it remains the Board’s essential function to make factual findings based on its view of the record.”).” slip op. at 3

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

    “In the Decision denying institution, we concluded that the evidence before us did not support Petitioner’s alleged reasons to modify the references (Dec. 16–22), nor establish a reasonable expectation of success of doing so (id. at 22–23). In reaching this conclusion, we did not rely solely on references presented by Patent Owner. Instead, we mainly relied on the express teachings of the art cited by Petitioner, including Marquez I and Marquez II. Id. at 17–20. Our plain reading of the prior art persuades us that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its patentability challenge. See Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, 856 F.3d 1019, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that the Board is not precluded “from relying on arguments made by a party and doing its job, as adjudicator, of drawing its own inferences and conclusions from those arguments, even when the result is use of the party’s submissions against it”).” slip op. at 5

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,815,830
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2020 · IPR2019-01055 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12–17, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “would have had either: (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field; or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors as well as my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. 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.”). slip op. at 12

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

    “We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “Patent Owner counters that Koning does not qualify as analogous art and, relatedly, that judicial estoppel bars Petitioner from contending otherwise. PO Resp. 7–17. Patent Owner further argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Koning’s belt with Hedderwick and Benac, and would not have expected that combination to succeed. Id. at 18–33; Sur-Reply 13–19. Patent Owner also challenges the motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the incorporation of Owner argues that incorporating Benac’s paddle wheel would not yield a “nip” as claimed. PO Resp. 49–61; Sur-Reply 29. Patent Owner also submits evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 61–98; Sur-Reply 2–10. 2. Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Of the disputed issues summarized in the preceding section, our analysis focuses on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references in the manner Petitioner proposes and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. Because those issues are dispositive of Petitioner’s challenge, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the other disputed issues. See, e.g., Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming Board’s determination that claims were not shown to be obvious because the petitioner had not demonstrated that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (determining that it is unnecessary to reach other issues when reasonable expectation of success is dispositive).” slip op. at 22

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

    “between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 78 (“[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would have determined through no more than routine experimentation how to orient Benac’s paddle wheel so that it could operate with Koning’s brush belt bristles to pinch seeds from the seed meter.”). It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the references in the proposed manner and would have reasonably expected success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,699,955 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,699,955
• Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2020 · IPR2019-01201 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable: the single-cell Dhallan theories lacked a reasonable expectation of success, and Rabinowitz was not established as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In sum, Petitioner’s evidence in the Petition establishes that single cells were used for genetic analysis, amplification techniques were known, and SNP arrays could be used to analyze chromosome imbalances. Petitioner’s evidence, however, does not persuasively address the interplay between the amount of DNA in a single cell and the amount of DNA or amplified DNA needed to carry out the claimed method using a SNP 22 genotyping array and Dhallan’s aneuploidy analysis. This is important because Patent Owner cites evidence demonstrating that at the relevant time, “various researchers had determined that very low amounts of DNA could not be reliably used for SNP genotyping arrays (even with intervening amplification).” PO Resp. 47.” slip op. at 22

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “On this record, we agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Quackenbush that the ’406 application and ’741 provisional together demonstrate to persons of 23 The ’741 provisional is incorporated by reference into the ’406 application. Ex. 1026, 1:5–13. 48 ordinary skill that the inventors understood pyrosequencing could be used for high-throughput sequencing, if expensive machines were purchased. In other words, the ’741 provisional gives context to the statement in the ’406 application, and we agree with Dr. Quackenbush that “‘[s]uitability’, as the provisional makes clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art, is a cost issue, rather than a technical one.” Ex. 2012 (Quackenbush Decl.) ¶ 277; see also id. ¶¶ 276–80 (opining on disclosures in the ’741 provisional).” slip op. at 48

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “As to Dr. Quackenbush’s qualifications, although Petitioner characterizes his expertise as relating to statistics, the record reflects that he also has adequate experience in the fields of genetics and biotechnology. For example, he is Professor of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, the Chair of the Department of Biostatistics, and the Director of the Health Data Science Center at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. Ex. 2013, 1. He has almost three decades of experience in research and teaching in the fields of genetics and biotechnology (id. at 1–8, 12), has published hundreds of articles in these fields (id. at 13–52), was the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Genomics for over a decade (id. at 8), and has served as a peer reviewer, or on the editorial board, of a dozen other publications relating to genetics and biotechnology (id. at 7–8). Paper 49, 2. Given that experience in genetics and biotechnology, we find that Dr. Quackenbush has sufficient 54 specialized knowledge, experience, and education in the techniques of the ’592 Patent and prior art, such as DNA amplification, genotyping, and analysis of genetic data, for his testimony to be helpful to us. Moreover, even if Dr. Quackenbush did not personally work in fetal diagnostics at the relevant time, there is no requirement that a declarant must actually be a person of ordinary skill in the art to present testimony as to what such a person would have understood at the time of the invention. See, e.g., SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1373 (stating there is no requirement of a perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical experience” to testify). The remaining arguments raised in Petitioner’s motion relate to the sufficiency, rather than admissibility, of evidence. Such arguments are improperly advanced in a motion to exclude. See TPG 79 (stating that a motion to exclude may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact); see also Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (“[T]he Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented in this trial.”). Moreover, “there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding available to the public.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 at 40 (PTAB February 24, 2014). Rather than excluding evidence that is allegedly 55 confusing, misleading, or incorrect, we simply give it the appropriate weight in our analysis.” slip op. at 54

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “success arguments focus solely on Dhallan’s single cell disclosure, while “ignor[ing] Dhallan’s disclosure that its methodology can be performed using 2–32 cells, which also falls within the claims.” Reply 18 (citing, e.g., Pet. 13–14). Patent Owner responds that this is an improper attempt to change the thrust of the obviousness theory presented in the Petition. Sur-reply 16–17. We agree with Patent Owner. Although the Petition references portions of Dhallan that address using sources of DNA other than a single cell (see, e.g., Pet. 13–14, citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44, 74), this is by way of background only, falling within a section titled “Introduction to Dhallan.” See Pet. 11. Petitioner’s detailed obviousness arguments for claim 1 are limited to use of DNA from a single cell, and do not extend to DNA from multiple cells.15 See, e.g., id. at 19–20 (arguing that, because Dhallan’s preferred embodiment is one embryo cell, Dhallan teaches the claimed limitation reciting “wherein the small amount of genetic material from the individual is from fifty or fewer of the individual’s 15 As noted above, claim 1 recites several possible sources for the claimed “small amount of genetic data.” See supra n.9. Here we focus on Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments based on option [i], but note that Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments under options [ii] and [iii] also did not extend to use of DNA from multiple cells. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (cross-referencing arguments for claims 4, 5, and 17); id. at 34 (for claim 4, arguing option [ii] based on “a single human cell”); id. at 35 (for claim 5, arguing option [iii] based on “extracellular fetal DNA from maternal blood”); id. at 42 (for claim 17, arguing option [iii] based on a “single fetal cell”). 30 cells”); id. at 29 (“A POSA would have been motivated to use a single cell as the source of genetic material . . . .”); id. at 31 (“A POSA would have reasonably expected success in using Dhallan’s methodology, for example as described in Example 14, on one embryonic cell.”). Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is impermissibly attempting to change the thrust of its obviousness theory on reply. Sur-reply 16–17. We will not consider Petitioner’s belated attempt to argue a reasonable expectation of success in using more than a single cell in the claimed method. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the . . . patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,682,592 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,682,592
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Velos Media, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2020 · IPR2019-00710 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 22 not shown unpatentable over Chen or Chen and Bao under §103.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “The Decision, however, did not overlook and rather accepted that the DC block group flag was “not necessary (and often redundant).” Dec. 12–13 (quoting Pet. 53). Notwithstanding that proposition, we declined to extend it to compel omitting the DC block group flag and withholding the DC block from the (0,0) inference. Id. at 13. Petitioner faults the Decision’s conclusion because the (0,0) inference cannot be applied if the DC block does not have a group flag (the inference depends on the group flag’s value). See Req. Reh’g 7–8. The Request fails to persuade us that we misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s argument. Asserting that the DC block group flag was “unnecessary (and often redundant)” does not compel a conclusion that the DC block group flag would be omitted from the bitstream. The Decision determined that the Petition does not sufficiently justify such a conclusion and we do not agree with the Request’s post hoc view equating “not necessary” with “would be omitted.” See Req. Reh’g 8–9.” slip op. at 3

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

    “The Request argues the Petition establishes “it would have been obvious not to include (i.e., omit) a group flag in the bitstream for the DC block” as “one of three ways to reduce the size of coded video.” Req. Reh’g 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pet. 54). As an independent basis for modifying Chen, the Petition identifies three potential solutions for reducing coded-video size—“not encoding the significant-coefficient-group flag for the block containing the last significant coefficient, the DC block, and the block whose right neighboring block and lower neighboring block both have non-zero significant-coefficient-group flags.” Pet. 54–55. As support, the Petition cites the challenged patent. Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:6–54). Although the Petition also cites declaration testimony (id. at 55 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94)), that testimony offers no support beyond that in the Petition. Thus, other than through the challenged patent itself, the Petition does not support the factual underpinning required for an obvious-to-try conclusion. That hindsight approach does not establish a persuasive position.” slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,964,849
• Dolby Laboratories, Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2020 · IPR2020-00663 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1 and 2 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either claim would have been obvious over Griswold or England.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the submitted evidence and argument, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’603 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the ’603 patent was filed (a “POSITA”) would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, mathematics, or a related field, and approximately two years of relevant experience or equivalent study in electronic data protection, electronic content protection, or digital rights management. Pet. 16. Petitioner further states that additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–48). Patent Owner sets forth a similar definition, stating that a POSITA would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and three years of work or research experience in the fields of secure transactions and encryption, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and two years of work or research experience in related fields. Prelim. Resp. 19. Patent Owner states that the positions set forth in its Preliminary Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal. Id. The parties’ proposals do not differ in any meaningful way to the issues in dispute. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA, except that we delete the qualifier “a minimum” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of education. The qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond, and thus does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti and is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the prior art and the ’603 patent. We note, however, that our analysis would be the same under either parties’ definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 11

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

    “should be construed to mean “conditions or characteristics determined in advance against which to check the structure and/or behavior of one or more software modules.” Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–72). To support this proposed construction, Petitioner states that the ’603 patent describes “inspector modules that ‘are operable to check the structure and/or behavior of drivers, software, and/or hardware against predefined criteria.’” Id. at 17 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1001, 15:36–62); see also id. (citing Ex. 1001, 16:25–34, 23:63–24:4). Patent Owner contends that the term “predetermined criteria” does not require construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner further asserts that construction of this term is not necessary to resolve the matters presently in dispute. Id. We agree that no explicit construction of this phrase is necessary for our decision on whether to institute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only 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 12

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

    “With respect to Petitioner’s first argument, Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would have understood that in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content[,] the monitor at the licensee’s site must first identify the software in order for the software to be used together with the content . . . .” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93), id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 81). Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient evidence to support its contention. Although Petitioner cites to the declaration testimony of Dr. Madisetti to support its argument, Dr. Madisetti’s testimony merely repeats verbatim what is stated in the Petition and provides no additional persuasive facts or objective evidence to support his conclusion. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 93; see also id. at ¶¶ 77–82. To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, 829 F.3d at 1380; see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value). We are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s second argument that “a POSITA would have understood that in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content[,] the monitor at the licensee’s site must first identify the software . . . so that information identifying the software can be transmitted in the license datagram for evaluation at the licensor’s site.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51; Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence or argument either that the license datagram provides information about the software (as opposed to the licensed product itself) or a reason why a POSITA would have understood information about the software would be provided in the datagram for evaluation at the licensor’s site. To support this second argument, Petitioner states Griswold’s license check system involves sending a “request datagram” or a “license datagram” to the licensor’s site in order to obtain approval to use the licensed product. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:62–4:5, 5:44–52). Petitioner contends Griswold’s “license datagram 3 describes information related to the use of licensed product 1, including an identification of product 1 (i.e., the software).” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51); see also id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:44–45, 6:37–51; Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Griswold, however, does not state that license datagram 3 identifies the software separately from the product. Rather, Griswold sates that datagram 3 contains a number of fields, including product model number 24 that identifies product 1. Ex. 1006, 6:45–48. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that license datagram 3 identifies the software separately from the product. Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have understood that, in the embodiment where the software is separate from the content, the monitor must first identify the software so that information identifying the software can be transmitted in the license datagram for evaluation at the licensors site, is conclusory and unsupported. See Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 93). Thus, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Griswold teaches the” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,406,603
• Precision Planting LLC / Agco Corporation v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2019-01048 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not proven unpatentable over Hedderwick and Koning because Petitioner did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine the references as proposed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the prior art, Dr. Glancey’s opinion testimony and analysis, and providing some, but minimal, weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion testimony, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill, primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in a technology pertinent to the challenged claims would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, or five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree. A recipient of other academic degrees may qualify as a person of ordinary skill if they have taken coursework or have experience in the pertinent technology. Additional education could offset less work experience; additional work experience could offset less education or coursework.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that an explicit construction of the claims is not necessary for the purposes of determining whether the challenged claims are not patentable. slip op. at 20

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

    “sufficiently persuasive evidence, even in combination, to establish why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Hedderwick by (1) selectively gleaning only a portion of Koning’s conveying system, i.e., belt 44 with bristles 45, (2) selectively excluding Koning’s belt 23, and then (3) modifying Koning’s brush belt by reversing its orientation so that it carries seeds deposited into the bristles, as in the ’906 patent, rather than covering and guiding seeds carried by a separate and distinct conveyor belt, as in Koning. See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding an absence of a motivation to reverse parts to an orientation that was “totally backwards” from what one of skill in the art would even attempt). Petitioner’s arguments do not acknowledge the different function of Koning’s brush belt, or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adapt Koning’s brush belt to such a use and reasonably expect success in doing so. We determine Petitioner fails to meet its burden of providing a sufficiently persuasive explanation or reason for concluding that one of skill in the art would have combined these particular references to produce the claimed invention. “Without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias.” Metalcraft v. Toro, 848 F.3d at 1367. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.” Id.” slip op. at 30

  • ExcludeOther

    “II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner and Patent Owner each move to exclude a substantial number of exhibits on a number of different evidentiary grounds. See Pet. Mot. Excl.; PO Mot. Exclude. As our analysis does not refer to any of those exhibits, we dismiss each motion as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,686,906 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,686,906
• Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2020-01082 · APJ Amanda F Wieker · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–8 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The 3 Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Although the record reflects certain disputes regarding the claim language, it is not necessary for us to resolve those disputes in order to determine whether Petitioner has satisfied its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. See also Pet. 16–19 (construing the claim terms “alarm condition” and “alarm notification delay time,” but stating that the “Board need not construe these terms because the claims are invalid under either [parties’ proposed] interpretation”); Prelim. Resp. 27–31 (agreeing that “the Board does not need to construe any claim terms for purposes of deciding whether to institute the Petition,” but also arguing that Petitioner failed to identify corresponding structure for the purported meansplus-function term, “reporting module”). Accordingly, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person with at least a B.S. degree in electrical or biomedical engineering or a related field with at least two years’ experience designing patient monitoring systems,” wherein “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–43). Patent Owner does not offer a position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, which appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Moreover, Petitioner provides insufficient reasoning to show that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Lynn’s system to implement Kalkman’s simulation. We agree with Patent Owner that such a modification would render Lynn unsuitable for its intended purpose as an oximeter testing apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 46–47. For example, Petitioner does not explain how Lynn’s system would achieve its intended purpose of testing the responsiveness of an oximeter if the system were modified to simulate pre-alarm delay times instead of respiratory arrest. See, e.g., Pet. 43 (“[A] PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify the system of Lynn to use the pre-alarm delay time simulation of Kalkman to achieve the predictable result of optimizing pre-alarm delay times and reducing false and transient alarms.”). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Yanulis explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to abandon Lynn’s intended purpose as an oximeter testing apparatus, even if such a combination would have resulted in the optimization of pre-alarm delay times, as Petitioner contends. Pet. 42–44; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–113. Petitioner does not discuss this trade-off in functionality or intended purpose at all.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,255,994
• Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Election Systems & Software, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-00531 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Smartmatic’s rehearing request, leaving intact the determination that original claim 16 and substitute claims 21–29 were not shown unpatentable over Johnson and Cummings.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “ANALYSIS A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Specifically, “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Petitioner’s First Argument” slip op. at 2

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

    “As an initial matter, we disagree that we misapprehended Petitioner’s proffered basis for modifying the teachings of Johnson. Req. 1–2, 4–9. Our Decision makes clear that we understood the challenge as it was presented by Petitioner. For example, we expressly stated that “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Johnson with those of Cummings at the time of the invention to provide options for either depositing the paper ballot or returning it to the voter,” and quoted Petitioner’s proffered rationale for doing so––i.e., because “a voter may wish to receive his or her printed ballot if it were incorrectly marked in order to gain assurance that the ballot will not be mistakenly counted during a recount or audit of the paper ballots.” Dec. 18. We also characterized Petitioner’s obviousness challenge as being “over the combined teachings of Johnson and Cummings” and noted how the Petition “set[s] forth the [asserted] obviousness rationale and expectation of successfully modifying the teachings of Johnson with those of Cummings.” Id. at 14–15; see also id. at 17–18 (summarizing Cummings’ teachings); id. at 19–20 (identifying “Petitioner’s proffered modification” as “adding Cummings’ ‘ballot return’ feature to Johnson’s device”). Ultimately, we determined Petitioner failed to show that “the skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the proffered modification to the teachings of Johnson,” and “[i]n particular,” had not shown such artisan “would have modified Johnson to provide a voter with options for either depositing a physical ballot to a ballot box or returning the ballot to the voter.” Id. at 25. Notably, the language in our Decision (id.) tracks, almost verbatim, Petitioner’s proffered motivation for modifying Johnson’s teachings with those of Cummings to arrive at the subject matter of claim 16 (Pet. 57). Petitioner’s emphasis of our use of the phrase “considering Johnson’s teachings as a whole” (Req. 4) reflects a misunderstanding of the context in which this statement was used. Dec. 25. Specifically, this statement was part of an introductory paragraph summarizing the deficiencies in Petitioner’s case, and does not indicate that we focused solely on the teachings of Johnson in assessing the strength of Petitioner’s challenge. Indeed, as the Decision goes on to explain, a detailed analysis of Johnson’s teachings was necessary to determine how the skilled artisan would have viewed Johnson’s silence on the specifics of processing its segregated paper ballots “that have not been approved by the voter.” Ex. 1002, 6:56–60; see Dec. 26 (“According to Petitioner, ‘Johnson does not teach never providing the voter with a ballot.’ Reply 15. Petitioner thus appears to argue that Johnson’s lack of physical access to the printed ballot does not apply to every step in Johnson’s voting process.”). To discern how the skilled artisan would have viewed Johnson’s teachings, we stressed that we are required to consider Johnson’s teachings as a whole, which we did. Dec. 26 (noting that even though Johnson may be silent on specific teachings regarding how to handle disapproved paper ballots, that fact “does not negate our obligation to consider the teachings of the Johnson reference as a whole.” (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); id. at 25–27 (finding “Johnson repeatedly stresses the voter’s inaccessibility to the physical ballot” and that Johnson “when considered as a whole––does not suggest that a voter should be given physical possession of the inaccurate or disapproved ballots after it is segregated”). Only after we undertook this factual inquiry into the full scope and content of Johnson’s teachings were we then able to conclude, as a matter of law, that the claims would not have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Johnson and Cummings. Dec. 34, 41–42; In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009 (“The teachings of a prior art reference are underlying factual questions in the obviousness inquiry.”).” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “(Ex. 1023) and US 2005/0035199 (Ex. 1038), which purportedly “corroborates Dr. Bederson’s testimony as to why a [skilled artisan] would have been motivated to make the proposed modification of Johnson,” we disagree. Req. 6–7. The Decision addresses Chung specifically (Dec. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1023)) and furthermore explains why we ascribed little weight to Dr. Bederson’s testimonial evidence regarding how election audits are carried out (id. at 32–33). Regarding Chung, in the Decision we noted a key difference in how ballots were handled in Chung’s voting system vis-à-vis Johnson’s system–– i.e., “where the paper ballot remains inaccessible to the voter [Johnson], and Chung’s system where the paper ballot is given to a voter in the first instance.” Id. at 27–28. This difference is not to be understated because Petitioner tried to establish similarities between Johnson and Chung to support its argument that Johnson’s disclosure is “consistent with other voting machines that, for some period of time prevent the voter from accessing the ballot, only to later return the ballot to the voter.” Reply 11. Our Decision reflects the reasons we rejected that argument after considering Johnson’s disclosure as a whole. See Dec. 25–31. Specifically, based on the differences between the Johnson and Chung systems, we found Petitioner’s reliance on Chung to lack sufficient probative value. Id. at 27– 28; Ex. 1023, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 86, 99. And while our Decision does not specifically mention US 2005/0035199 (Ex. 1038), we note that Petitioner cited this exhibit in support of Dr. Bederson’s testimonial evidence regarding how election audits are carried out. Reply 24; Ex. 1024 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 35, and opining “there is no reason all of Johnson’s ballots must be collected to conduct an audit of an election.”). Our Decision makes clear, however, that we ascribed little weight to Dr. Bederson’s opinion on such matters and explained our rationale for doing so. Dec. 32–33 (citing Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003)); id. at 45 (according this disputed evidence “minimal weight”).” slip op. at 5

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,096,471
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01044 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Hedderwick, Koning, and Benac because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “have had either (1) a bachelor’s degree plus four years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field or (2) a master’s degree plus two years of experience in mechanical engineering, agricultural engineering, or a related field.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19– 20). In the testimony the Petition cites in support of that proposal, Mr. Prairie lists factors that are typically considered in assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, and then states “[b]ased on these factors together with my experience and expertise,” his opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the same as Petitioner proposes. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 19–20. This conclusory testimony is entitled to little weight. 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.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).6 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). V. OBVIOUSNESS OVER HEDDERWICK, KONING, AND BENAC” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, explains that [i]f a wheel is used to load and place seeds within a moving belt with brush hairs, the wheel must be able to disengage from seeds while the seeds remain in between brush hairs. If the wheel maintains contact with the seed after the seed has moved into the brush hairs, the wheel will continue to apply force to the seed and eject or remove the seed from the profile of the brush hairs . . . . Ex. 2200 ¶ 223. Dr. Glancey testifies, credibly, that in Petitioner’s combination, seeds would have been rejected from the belt because, as the paddle wheel rotates, seeds “would be scooped through the belt.” Id. ¶ 225.” slip op. at 31

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

    “way the references use endless members in the form of brush belts and paddle wheels, versus the way Petitioner uses those components in the proposed combination. Contrary to Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s assertions, the proposed combination does not merely apply known techniques to a known device, because none of the cited references use brush belts and paddle wheels in the manner Petitioner proposes. As discussed in greater detail below, Benac teaches that a paddle wheel can be used to ensure that seeds jammed in vacuum holes are released reliably, and then dropped to the ground. Benac does not address brush belts as an endless member and, therefore, does not teach that paddle wheels can be used to guide seeds into the bristles of a brush belt, as Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 64. And Koning does not teach a brush belt that captures seeds released from above, as Petitioner and Mr. Prairie propose. See Pet. 61–62; Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 2193, 190:10–191:3; Ex. 2263, 167:21–170:9. Rather, Koning’s brush belt maintains the relative position of potatoes lying on a conveying surface by holding them from above while the conveyor moves them to the furrow. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4. Petitioner’s arguments do not adequately account for these differences between the references’ use of a brush belt as an endless member and paddle wheels versus the proposed combination. Moreover, Patent Owner points out problems ordinarily skilled artisans would have encountered in attempting to combine the references as Petitioner proposes. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how those issues could have been overcome, and instead simply asserts, essentially, that ordinarily skilled artisans could have figured it out. See, e.g., Ex. 1135 ¶ 80. It is Petitioner’s burden to establish that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine the success in doing so. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not carry that burden.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,813,663 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,813,663
• Precision Planting, LLC / Agco Corp. v. Deere & CompanyNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01046 · APJ Timothy J Goodson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 were not shown unpatentable over Hedderwick, Koning, and Yamahata under § 103 because Petitioner did not establish motivation to combine or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence and arguments of record, we determine that the evidence favors Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill. Our determination is primarily based on Dr. Glancey’s analysis and reasons summarized above, as well as the prior art of record and the sophistication of the technology of the ’199 patent. We have considered Mr. Prairie’s opinion, but we give that testimony minimal weight due to the lack of supporting explanation. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in agricultural engineering, or a similar field, and two years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had five years of experience designing agricultural products or related machinery, without a four-year undergraduate engineering degree.” slip op. at 13

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “In an inter partes review proceeding, a claim of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).7 That standard “includ[es] construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed “to the extent” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1135 ¶ 51. Yet it is Petitioner’s burden to show motivation and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed combination, not Patent Owner’s burden to show that the prior art demonstrates the futility of the proposed combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner’s affirmative showing on motivation and reasonable expectation of success for using Koning’s brush belt in the proposed combination is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. And Patent Owner’s evidence of difficulties an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected to encounter in that proposal serves to highlight the issues that Petitioner’s showing ignores. Petitioner additionally contends that Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the erroneous premise that an ordinarily skilled artisan must be able to physically combine the references. See Pet. Reply 7 (citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). We disagree. Patent Owner’s arguments, summarized above, simply point out that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have expected success in combining the references’ teachings in the way Petitioner proposes. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success are properly assessed with reference to the combination as Petitioner has framed it. The Federal Circuit has explained that doing so is not inconsistent with Mouttet. See Samsung, 925 F.3d at 1382–83 (“We will not fault the Board for analyzing Petitioners’ obviousness grounds in the way presented in the Petition.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s and Mr. Prairie’s analysis does not acknowledge, much less bridge, the gap between Koning’s use of a brush belt to hold potatoes from above as they lie on a conveying surface, versus the brush belt’s use in above.10 During his deposition, Mr. Prairie resisted agreeing that the potatoes are lying on the conveyor in Koning, testifying that he takes from Koning’s description that “they are captured within the belt with brush hairs. And that there is some weight that’s along the conveying member 23.” Ex. 2193, 96:24–99:25. Mr. Prairie testified that he “do[es]n’t believe the brush hairs support the full weight of the potatoes,” but that Koning did not provide him sufficient information to answer whether the conveying member supports the majority of the weight of the potatoes. Id. at 106:22–107:21. In our view, it is clear from Koning’s description that the potatoes lie on the conveyor and the purpose of the brush belt is to maintain their position relative to each other while they are moved by the conveyor. Ex. 1004, 3:16–24, 5:3–14, Fig. 4; see also Ex. 2205 ¶¶ 140–141 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Glancey, testifying that a simple mechanical analysis shows that in Koning, about 87% of the potatoes’ weight is supported by the conveying member). Mr. Prairie’s refusal to acknowledge the differences between the brush belt’s function in Koning versus the proposed combination undermines the credibility of his testimony that the proposed combination would have been a simple application of a known technique to a known device. 10 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting expert testimony that supported the absence of a motivation to combine: “[I]f I can equate this one to kind of a simple analogy, if you’re trying to build a piece of furniture. What’s a typical thing? You put on a piece of wood. You take a nail, and you hit the nail with a hammer. In control terms, what Mr. Phipps is suggesting is that you put the hammer on the workbench, pick up the piece of furniture and bash the piece of furniture onto the hammer. It’s totally backwards from what I believe one of skill in the art would even attempt . . . .”). have been simple for an ordinarily skilled artisan to adapt Koning’s brush belt for use in the proposed combination, where seeds are deposited onto the brush belt from above—is further undermined by his testimony that he “can’t recall a time where I’ve seen a seed being dropped into a brush belt.” Ex. 2193, 113:5–9; see also Ex. 2263, 81:2–12 (“Q. And you never attempted to drop a seed onto a moving brush belt to see whether that would be inserted into the brush belt, correct? A. As I stated, for the purposes of this case, I did not do any physical experimentation with a moving brush belt as I didn’t feel it was necessary. The prior art discloses sufficient information.”) (objection omitted). Mr. Prairie has “had some industrial design projects where we’ve had to utilize brushes for various applications,” but he “ha[s] not used a brush belt to convey seed.” Ex. 2194, 297:6–16. Mr. Prairie testified that “prior to writing this declaration, brush belt technology was not a specific area that I study, that I was researching.” Ex. 2263, 79:6–9. Indeed, during his initial deposition in this case, the only specific example of a moving brush belt Mr. Prairie could recall seeing was Patent Owner’s ExactEmerge product. Ex. 2193, 108:6–110:10. The basis for Mr. Prairie’s opinion, that a seed would be expected to enter a moving brush belt in the proposed combination, appears to only be Koning itself. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–81; Ex. 2193, 116:12–19, 118:7–23; Ex. 2263, 159:5–160:2. When asked at his deposition, Mr. Prairie did not explain any other engineering analysis he performed to make that determination. Ex. 2193, 114:23–117:12. Mr. Prairie testified that he “did not operate a brush belt for this declaration because [he] didn’t feel it was necessary to make my assessments” and he “did not do study or experimentation on a brush belt as I did not feel it was necessary.” unpersuasive because, as discussed above, Koning does not teach using a brush belt to receive and convey seeds that have been dropped onto it from above. Mr. Prairie does not account for that difference by explaining why an ordinarily skilled artisan would expect Koning’s brush belt to effectively capture and carry seeds dropped from above, as in the proposed combination.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,480,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,480,199

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.