• Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2019 · IPR2019-00637 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show it had adequately supported the claimed ligation efficiency or a specific motivation to modify Schmitt.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision should be modified. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “ligation efficiency. Indeed, we expressly acknowledged it. See Dec. 14 (noting Petitioner’s argument that “tagging ‘at least 20% of the cfDNA molecules’ would have been obvious because ligation efficiency ‘could be improved using a variety of techniques’”). After reviewing Petitioner’s evidence and argument, however, we were not persuaded that it was sufficient. Id. Even if the relevance of ligation efficiency was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated by Petitioner, the Petition still fails to provide a specific motivation to modify Schmitt. As explained in the Decision, “even if techniques were known that could have improved ligation efficiency, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Schmitt to tag ‘at least 20%’ of the DNA molecules.” Dec. 15; see also Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). That is, Petitioner’s motivation is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements.” (Fed. Cir. 2012). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “knowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references to reach the particular claimed method.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is not until its Rehearing Request that Petitioner specifically ties its ligation efficiency argument to Schmitt. Reh’g Req. 11. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “[b]ecause it would have been desirable to improve the sequencing library’s diversity or representation of the genome, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] trying to detect genetic aberrations with the DCS method of Schmitt would have been motivated to modify the method of Schmitt to optimize sample preparation, e.g., improve ligation efficiency, based on the techniques known in the art.” Id. As evidenced by the lack of citation, Petitioner did not make this argument in its Petition. We, therefore, do not consider it on rehearing, as a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the petition.” slip op. at 5

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,902,992
• Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2019 · IPR2019-00636 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied because Petitioner did not show that Schmitt and the asserted obviousness rationale taught or motivated the claimed ligation efficiency.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision should be modified. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “ligation efficiency. Indeed, we expressly acknowledged it. See Dec. 14 (noting Petitioner’s argument that “tagging ‘at least 20% of the cfDNA molecules’ would have been obvious because ligation efficiency ‘could be improved using a variety of techniques’”). After reviewing Petitioner’s evidence and argument, however, we were not persuaded that it was sufficient. Id. Even if the relevance of ligation efficiency was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated by Petitioner, the Petition still fails to provide a specific motivation to modify Schmitt. As explained in the Decision, “even if techniques were known that could have improved ligation efficiency, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Schmitt to tag ‘at least 20%’ of the DNA molecules.” Dec. 15; see also Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). That is, Petitioner’s motivation is “generic and bears no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements.” (Fed. Cir. 2012). As the Federal Circuit has explained, “knowledge of a problem and motivation to solve it are entirely different from motivation to combine particular references to reach the particular claimed method.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is not until its Rehearing Request that Petitioner specifically ties its ligation efficiency argument to Schmitt. Reh’g Req. 11. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “[b]ecause it would have been desirable to improve the sequencing library’s diversity or representation of the genome, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] trying to detect genetic aberrations with the DCS method of Schmitt would have been motivated to modify the method of Schmitt to optimize sample preparation, e.g., improve ligation efficiency, based on the techniques known in the art.” Id. As evidenced by the lack of citation, Petitioner did not make this argument in its Petition. We, therefore, do not consider it on rehearing, as a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the petition.” slip op. at 5

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “It is not until its Rehearing Request that Petitioner specifically ties its ligation efficiency argument to Schmitt. Reh’g Req. 11. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “[b]ecause it would have been desirable to improve the sequencing library’s diversity or representation of the genome, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] trying to detect genetic aberrations with the DCS method of Schmitt would have been motivated to modify the method of Schmitt to optimize sample preparation, e.g., improve ligation efficiency, based on the techniques known in the art.” Id. As evidenced by the lack of citation, Petitioner did not make this argument in its Petition. We, therefore, do not consider it on rehearing, as a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the petition.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,902,992
• Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2019 · IPR2018-01039 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing on printed-publication accessibility, finding a reasonable likelihood Dougherty was publicly accessible before the critical date, and remanded for consideration of institution on obviousness.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “We grant Petitioner’s request for rehearing. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has submitted evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the reference qualifies as a printed publication. In view of this holding, we remand to the merits panel to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3

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

    “reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication. If trial is instituted, the petitioner will ultimately have the burden to prove that the reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent. V. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that Request for Rehearing is granted to address the POP review issue; and FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the original merits panel for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of whether to institute a trial on the merits of the obviousness ground presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted

    “institution, and based on the totality of the evidence to date, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication. The face of Dougherty bears a copyright date of 1990, a printing date of November 1992, and an ISBN date of 8/94. Ex. 1004, 4. In addition, the book is a textbook from an established publisher, O’Reilly, and a well-known book series. See Canon Br. 11–12 (quoting https://www.oreilly.com/about/history.html). As Canon asserts, the cover of Publisher’s Weekly stated (with respect to this series) that “The Internet Was Built With O’Reilly Books.” Id. Altogether, this is sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication that a publisher made available to the pertinent public prior to the October 1995 critical date.” slip op. at 19

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,806,062
• Haag-Streit AG v. Eidolon Optical, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · IPR2018-01311 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  • ExcludeOther

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

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 101 substituteMixed

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

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

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,188,751
• Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00707 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 5, 7, 8, 18, 20, and 21 not shown unpatentable on the challenged obviousness grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “construction of the phrase ‘above the surface,’ then the Board’s construction cannot be reasonably discerned.” Req. Reh’g 8. If that were the case, Petitioner contends we “must articulate and explain [our] construction for the purposes of judicial review.” Id. at 9. Yet Petitioner failed to explain in the Petition how the cited references teach the “above the surface” limitations of claims 5 and 18 under any construction of these limitations, including the one implied in footnote 8 of the Petition. See Pet. 55 n.8, 69 n.10. Petitioner did not specify any dispute regarding the meaning of the term “the surface” and neither did Patent Owner. See, e.g., id. at 8–9 (no terms proposed by Petitioner for construction), 55 (Petitioner’s analysis for claim 18 referring to earlier analysis relative to the “effect mounting surface”); Paper 26, 34–41, 43 (no arguments in Patent Owner’s Response based on an interpretation of “the surface”); Paper 34, 16–17 (Petitioner in its Reply referring to arguments in the Petition for “above the surface”). As such, we did not expressly construe “above the surface.” See, e.g., 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))). In addition, Petitioner purports to construe “above the surface” for the first time. See Req. Reh’g 2, 7 (stating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “above the surface” is “above the ground” or “above the area to provide spacing for cables to run underneath the frame”). Petitioner could have, but did not, put forth such constructions in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. ordinary meaning of “above the surface” in the Request for Rehearing (see Req. Reh’g 7), Petitioner’s arguments come too late. And Petitioner never previously attempted to associate the recited “surface” with “the ground” or “the area to provide spacing for cables to run underneath the frame.” Contrary to Petitioner’s new constructions, and as explained above, Petitioner previously associated the recited “surface” with “the effect mounting surface.” See Pet. 55 n.8 (“the ’023 Patent provides no support for the frame in Claim 15 being supported above the effect mounting surface in Claim 18” (bold emphasis added)), 69 n.10 (referring to footnote 8).” slip op. at 5

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

    “of the “above the surface” limitation was framed by its statement in the Petition that claims 5 and 18 are invalid “under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the ’023 Patent provides no support for the frame . . . being supported above the effect mounting surface.” Pet. 55 n.8 (italics in original; bolding emphasis added), 69 n.10 (referring to footnote 8); see also Final Dec. 51 n.12 (quoting same). Thus, Petitioner associated the “surface” in the recitation “above the surface” with the “effect mounting surface” recited in base claims 2 and 15. Despite this association, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis made no attempt to show that Arseneault’s higher backwall (i.e., the “frame base,” see Pet. 51–53, 55–56) supports SCC-700’s cross members A–D (i.e., the “frame,” see id. at 50) above the units board of SCC-700 (i.e., the “effects mounting surface,” see Pet. 46–47).1 Rather, Petitioner addressed only the “frame base supporting the frame” and “allowing the cable to pass beneath the frame” limitations of claims 5 and 18. See Pet. 54–55, 69–70. Thus, we determined that Petitioner’s analysis “d[id] not establish that Arseneault teaches ‘a frame base supporting the 1 As we acknowledged, Petitioner’s analysis for claim 18 builds upon its anticipation analysis for claim 15 and its analysis for the recited “frame” in claim 1. See Final Dec. 51–52.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “3 We also considered Petitioner’s argument from its Reply that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have easily made a rigid connection between the cross members and end-members using the same fasteners that are disclosed in Carter.” Final Dec. 72 (citing Paper 34, 24; Ex. 1051 ¶ 26). We were not persuaded by this rationale because Petitioner did not provide a reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made such a connection. See id. at 75. Petitioner does not contest this determination in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,459,023
• Opec Engineering Co., Ltd. D/B/A Opecmade, Inc. v. Berkenhoff GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2019 · IPR2019-01090 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood on only a limited portion of the challenges, making review of all claims and grounds inefficient.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). As discussed above, the present Petition challenges six of the claims of the ’789 patent on five asserted grounds, and Petitioner fails to carry its burden with respect to three of those grounds and five of those claims. This leaves two grounds that, between them, challenge a single claim of the ’789 patent. Were we to institute trial on either (or both) of the remaining grounds, we would be required to consider at trial not only the challenge that those grounds present to the remaining claim, but also the challenges to the five claims and three grounds on which Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. at 1356. In exercising discretion, we are guided by the philosophy embodied in the statutory requirement to promulgate regulations for inter partes review that further “the efficient administration of the Office [and] the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). We also are guided by the requirement to construe our rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Consistent with these policies, Office guidance explains that we may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). SAS Q&A’s, Part D, Effect of SAS on Future Challenges that Could Be Denied for Statutory Reasons (June 5, 2018), available at https://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/ sas_qas_20180605.pdf (“[T]he panel will evaluate the challenges and determine whether, in the interests of efficient administration of the Office and integrity of the patent system (see 35 USC § 316(b)), the entire petition should be denied under 35 USC § 314(a).”). Here, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on a majority of its asserted grounds of unpatentability and with respect to nearly all of its challenged claims. This raises at least some question as to whether instituting a trial with respect to all six claims and on all five grounds would be an efficient use of the Board’s time and resources. See, e.g., Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018). We must, therefore, decide whether the game is worth the candle; specifically, is resolving the question as to the patentability of claim 1 a sufficient reason to proceed to trial on claims 1 and 10–14? We assume, without deciding, that there may be situations in which resolving the patentability of one claim might justify trial as to six claims. For example, the Patent Owner in some cases may prefer to proceed to trial—and risk the patentability of the single claim—to gain the potential preclusive effect that would attach at the entry of a final written decision (see 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)) finding the remaining five claims not unpatentable. In other situations, the arguments against the patentability of that one claim may be so strong that we believe it is in the public interest to resolve them. Or it is possible the scope of the various claims challenged might merit review as to only some of them. For example, if a petition were to challenge a single, broad independent claim and a number of very narrow dependent claims, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to the independent claim alone may justify proceeding to trial on all claims, because a potential finding of unpatentability would significantly narrow the overall scope of the patent. Notably, none of these circumstances is present in the case at hand. Patent Owner has not expressed a preference that we proceed to trial so that it may have the benefit of estoppel under § 315(e). Nor is claim 1, the sole claim still potentially at issue in the case, significantly broader than claims 10–14. All the challenged claims are independent, and, indeed, it appears that claim 10 (directed to a sheath with an outer layer “consisting of a copper/zinc alloy comprising gamma and epsilon phases and predominantly containing a gamma phase”) has a broader scope than claim 1 (directed to a sheath with an outer layer “consisting of a copper/zinc alloy consisting of a gamma phase”). In other words, finding claim 1 unpatentable would not significantly narrow the scope of the ’789 patent. As a result, it is hard to discern how resolving the question as to the patentability of claim 1 would significantly benefit the public interest by narrowing the overall scope of the patent.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In no case, however, does Petitioner offer sufficient argument or supporting evidence for the existence of a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of the references. With respect to the Briffod2/Groos ground, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he technologies in Briffod2, Groos and the ‘789 Patent are very closely related,” going on to demonstrate the existence of several similarities between the three patents. Pet. 55–56. This may be enough to show an analogous-art type relationship between the references, but there is a difference between proving that the references could have been combined and showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to do so. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that the inquiry as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the references “picks up where the analogous art test leaves off”). The same flaw affects Petitioner’s arguments with respect to the Briffod2/Groos/Briffod1 ground and the Briffod2/Groos/Tominaga ground, both of which assert merely that “the technologies in [the references in question] are extremely closely related.” Pet. 57–58, 72. Because Petitioner fails to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the prior-art references asserted in Petitioner’s multi-reference obviousness grounds, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim on any of those three grounds.” slip op. at 6

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Briffod2, the only prior-art reference at issue in the two asserted single-reference grounds, as well as the primary reference at issue in the combination grounds, previously was presented to the Office during prosecution of the challenged patent. Prelim. Resp. 21–29. We need not consider that argument because we determine that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). As discussed above, the present Petition challenges six of the claims of the ’789 patent on five asserted grounds, and Petitioner fails to carry its burden with respect to three of those grounds and five of those claims. This leaves two grounds that, between them, challenge a single claim of the ’789 patent. Were we to institute trial on either (or both) of the remaining grounds, we would be required to consider at trial not only the challenge that those grounds present to the remaining claim, but also the challenges to the five claims and three grounds on which Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. at 1356.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
• Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01138 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,659,472 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,659,472
• Ioxus, Inc. v. Cap-Xx, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2019 · IPR2019-01178 · APJ Jennifer Meyer Chagnon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on its asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may be instituted only upon a showing 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) (2012). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in challenging the patentability of the challenged claims. We, therefore, decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’034 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “On this record, we agree that Petitioner has not offered sufficient argument or supporting evidence that a person skilled in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Yoshida and AAPA. Petitioner first argues that the PowerStor device uses the same cylinder-type supercapacitor as that is described in Yoshida and “[i]t would have therefore been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to combine the ‘Prior Art 1’ AAPA with Yoshida so that Yoshida’s supercapacitor has a volumetric FOM of 3.0 (or 3.02).” Pet. 62; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 202 (“Because Yoshida has the same EDLC shape and wound-cell configuration as the PowerStor supercapacitor . . . it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to combine the data for that supercapacitor . . . with the general cylindrical EDLC disclosures in Yoshida to obtain the 3.0 FOMv value.”). Petitioner’s reasoning, while relevant to showing that the references could have been combined, i.e., that they may be analogous, nevertheless falls short of establishing what would have prompted the ordinarily skilled artisan to make the proffered combination to yield a supercapacitor having volumetric FOM of 3.0. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that the inquiry as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the references “picks up where the analogous art test leaves off”). Petitioner’s further argument that “there were no standard electrode shapes/sizes/dimensions at the time of the ’034 patent” and, therefore, “[i]t would have been a simple matter of the [person of ordinary skill in the art art] playing around with the dimensions of Yoshida’s device to get to the 3.0 FOMv” fares no better. Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1002 ¶ 204. As our reviewing court has explained, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc., 805 F.3d at 1703 (citations omitted). That the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to achieve a volumetric FOM of 3.0 does not explain why modifying Yoshida to achieve a volumetric FOM of 3.0 is desirable in the first instance. The prior art may show a supercapacitor having a gravimetric FOM as claimed, but without more, this fails to provide the requisite reason for a skilled artisan to modify Yoshida’s device to include the claimed gravimetric FOM. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–419. Accordingly, Petitioner’s assertions here are “insufficient to show persuasively that a relevant artisan would have recognized some deficiency in one reference or had some other reason to motivate looking to the other and combining them.” Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC, 662 F. App’x 981, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished); see also id. (“[T]he Board correctly concluded that Microsoft did not articulate a sufficient motivation to combine,” where “Microsoft gave no reason for the motivation of a person of ordinary skill to combine [two references] except that the references were directed to the same art or same techniques.”). Thus, Petitioner fails to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Yoshida and AAPA as proposed. Arguments Regarding a Presumption of Obviousness” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “11 Petitioner requested authorization to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the credibility of Dr. Juzkow’s testimony. See Ex. 3001. We denied Petitioner’s request. Paper 7, 2. For purposes of this Decision, we have given full weight to Dr. Juzkow’s testimony, notwithstanding any alleged credibility issues raised by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in electrical engineering or chemistry (or equivalent degree or experience) and at least two years of additional experience in the area of supercapacitors, or equivalent work experience.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed description of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,920,034

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.