- Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster L.L.C.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2016-01435 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–12, and 17–21, 23 were not proven unpatentable over Kauffman and Iwaguchi, with Howard for claims 18 and 20, because the motivation to combine was insufficiently shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a “Bachelors of Science degree in Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering (or equivalent) or other Engineering major with a minor in Food Science and Technology and have had one or more years’ experience in the field of research and development of foods.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 74). Patent Owner does not propose an explicit level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Dr. Keener, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. Ex. 2032 ¶ 63. Consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“means for re-circulating” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the claim term “means for re-circulating” as a means-plus-function limitation, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Id. at 17–18. We construed the function as “re-circulating said cooking oil” and identified the corresponding structure as “a pump and structural equivalents thereof.” Id. at 18–19. Neither party contests our construction of the term, and we maintain that construction here for the same reasons. slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that we need not expressly construe the term “adapter.” We reiterate the following from our Institution Decision: The term “adapter” appears in each claim of the ’691 patent. Neither party contends that the specification or prosecution history contains a lexicographic definition of the term, and neither party asserts that the specification or prosecution history contains a disclaimer of any portion of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. From our review of the record, the structure and location of the adapter recited in the claims is provided by other claim language describing that (1) the adapter is located external to the fryer, (2) the sensor is disposed in the adapter, (3) the adapter is installed between two portions of the return pipe or drain pipe, and (4) the adapter has two opposite ends wherein one of the two ends is connected to one of the two portions of either the return pipe or the drain pipe and the other end is connected to the other portion of pipe.3 Inst. Dec. 9–10. In light of the above discussion, and because the focus of the parties’ dispute is not on the meaning of the term “adapter,” we decline to expressly construe the term further.” slip op. at 8
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify We instituted Petitioner’s challenge of these claims, and those that depend therefrom, based on Petitioner’s position that Kauffman disclosed most of the elements of the independent claims with the exception of a sensor capable of measuring an electrical property that is indicative of total polar materials. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 31. Thus, the theory of obviousness, as discussed above, relies upon substituting Iwaguchi’s sensor for Kauffman’s analyzer. See id. at 31 (“Petitioner provides a second argument that relies upon a modification to Kauffman’s system, in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is employed instead of Kauffman’s analyzer. Because Petitioner provides adequate support for this second position, we address Patent Owner’s arguments based on this proposed combination.”). Petitioner confirmed at the oral argument that its Petition proposed a theory in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is simply swapped for that of Kauffman’s and did not present a more general theory as to modifying Kauffman’s sensor per the teachings of Iwaguchi: JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Did you include both of those alternative theories in your petition or is that something that you’re – you’ve come up with now in the reply? MR. VAIDYA: It’s something that we -- again, in the reply, we wanted to make it very clear that we aren’t going on a 102 basis and we are -- and what -- I think what -- we did have that alternate in the reply, so the alternate -- and I can point to paragraphs if that helps. And so, the idea is again primarily we’re going with the idea of swapping sensors, but that it would be possible to modify the sensor in Kauffman. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Because in the petition, it was a swap of the sensors. MR. VAIDYA: That’s right. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: And that’s what we instituted -- MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- based on. MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. Tr. 13:21–14:12. We disregard Petitioner’s alternative position as it was an attempt to raise a new theory of unpatentability improperly for the first time in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,497,691 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,497,691 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01107 · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 21 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Neilson, Kelly, and Miller because the references did not teach the nozzle limitations without hindsight, and secondary considerations weighed against obviousness.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Based on the record before us, we determine that the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” means “a nozzle pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield,” and the phrase, “directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield using the nozzle,” means “spraying rinsing fluid onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” Our claim constructions are supported by the claim language for at least two reasons: First, the phrase, “a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield,” describes a component of a mixing machine. Claim 21 recites: “providing a mixing machine having . . . a nozzle oriented towards the splash shield.” Ex. 1001, 7:1–5. This limitation describes the structure of a mixing machine that is used to perform the claimed method. As Petitioner explains, “[c]laim 21 is a method claim that separately recites attributes of the provided mixing machine and a step of directing rinsing fluid.” Pet. Reply 4. “Oriented” describes the position of the nozzle in the machine. The nozzle is oriented before it is used to direct rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. In other words, the nozzle is pre-positioned. Second, the claim drafter used the term, “positionable,” rather than” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We accept Dr. Slocum’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) as an engineer with at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or related discipline and at least three years of professional or research experience in the design of consumer or medical products that utilize fluid systems. Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Dr. Maynes states that he does not necessarily agree with Dr. Slocum’s definition, but does not provide and alternative definition or no persuasive reasoning as to why Dr, Slocum’s definition is incorrect. Ex. 2023 ¶ 6. We also rely on Petitioner’s references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“limited to automatic rinsing, Miller discloses an electronically controlled nozzle 129. Pet. Reply 12. Petitioner argues that it would have been a simple substitution to modify Kelly’s spray device 56 with Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 and that the teachings of Kelly and Miller would have led a skilled artisan to orient Miller’s electronically controlled nozzle 129 toward Neilson’s lid 16 and direct rinsing fluid thereon. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 82–85; Ex. 2027, 169–72). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument for two reasons. First, Petitioner’s reply argument relies on impermissible hindsight. The combination of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller does not teach or suggest the nozzle limitations of claim 21 without relying on the claim as a roadmap for selecting and modifying the teachings. Miller teaches nozzle 129 for spraying cleaning fluid onto a blender spindle after each use. Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Figs. 17, 18. Miller also discloses a splash shield in the form of a tubular sleeve inserted into a mixing container during blending. Id. ¶ 42; Ex. 1005, 4:1–4, 4:33–36. Like Neilson’s lid 16, Miller’s splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Although Miller’s nozzle 129 is pre-positioned, it is not pointed at a splash shield. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 55, Fig. 18 (showing nozzle 129 for dispensing cleaning fluid onto spindle 114). To meet the nozzle limitations of claim 21, Kelly’s nozzle would need to be modified from a manually positionable nozzle to one that is pre-positioned such that it points at a splash shield. Such a modification is not suggested by Miller, which does not teach or suggest a nozzle pointed at a splash shield and instead teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. Thus, even if combined, Neilson, Kelly, and Miller do not, absent hindsight, teach or suggest a method of rinsing a splash shield in which a nozzle is pre-positioned such that it points at the splash shield and rinsing fluid is sprayed onto the splash shield from the pre-positioned nozzle.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Slocum that is not supported by Miller, and we, thus, decline to afford it substantial weight. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 69, 84, 85); see also Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 77).8 In paragraph 69, Dr. Slocum testifies that, “in the case of Miller,” the angle of the nozzle is adjusted “to clean . . . the splash shield.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 69. In paragraph 85, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller teaches “the rinsing fluid [is] used for the splash shield.” Id. ¶ 85. In paragraph 77, Dr. Slocum testifies that Miller discloses using a nozzle oriented towards a splash shield for directing rinsing fluid onto the splash shield. Id. ¶ 77. Dr. Slocum’s testimony is inconsistent with Miller, which teaches that the splash shield is manually removed for cleaning. Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In fact, on cross-examination, Dr. Slocum conceded that Miller does not disclose automatic cleaning of the sleeve (splash shield) 8 See supra note 7. and that Miller’s nozzle is not pointed at the sleeve. Ex. 2027, 189:8– 190:11. Petitioner also relies on Dr. Slocum’s testimony that a PHOSITA reading Kelly would have substituted an electronic valve for Kelly’s manual valve and would have “put a bunch of them in at a bunch of different angles,” so when the valves are actuated, the whole thing is cleaned. Ex. 2027, 169:5–172:9; see Pet. Reply 13. In our view, the cited testimony is not credibly based on the teachings of the prior art references, as opposed to the teachings of the ’662 patent. Whereas Dr. Slocum opines that it would have been obvious to clean a splash shield using electronically operated nozzles (id.), Neilson, Kelly, and Miller all teach manual cleaning of a splash shield. Ex. 1002, 4:13–20; Ex. 1003, 5:65–66; Ex. 1004 ¶ 45; Ex. 1005, 5:4–10. In view of the inconsistencies between Dr. Slocum’s testimony and the teachings of Miller, we do not give substantial weight to his opinion that the method of claim 21 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of Neilson, Kelly, and Miller.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,520,662 - R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2016-01268 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2 and 3 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Hon ’043 and Whittemore because the petitioner did not establish a sufficient motivation to combine them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11; PO Resp. 7–8. In light of the evidence before us, we find that the references themselves represent the level of ordinary skill in the art, and that we need not explicate it further. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 12350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves); In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). C.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 2016, 61:8–19. Petitioner, however, does not provide adequate explanation as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would think that to be the case. In reaching that determination, we credit Mr. Meyst’s testimony over that of Dr. Sturges.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 2015 ¶ 98 (internal citations omitted). Dr. Sturges, however, stated at his deposition that he did not do any calculations to determine how factors such as the speed and pressure of the airstream, and the rate of change of the pressure of the airstream as it travels through the ejection holes and into the atomization chamber, would affect the dispersion of the droplets ejected from the ejection holes towards the heating wire in Hon ’043. Ex. 2016, 64:5–66:4. In light of the variables that can affect how the droplets could disperse upon ejection from the ejection holes, Petitioner has not explained adequately why a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that only a small amount of droplets would contact Hon ’043’s heating wire and that the atomization described in Hon ’043 is inefficient.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, we must “cast the mind back to the time the invention was made” and “occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented with only the references, and who is normally guided by then-accepted wisdom in the art.” W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Innogenetics, 512 F.3d at 1374 n.3 (“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of the references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”)). Here, Petitioner attempts to imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the claimed invention, when no prior art reference, references of record, or other evidence conveys or suggests that knowledge. Petitioner’s proposed rationale relies upon general and conclusory statements from Dr. Sturges regarding thermal dynamics that are not sufficiently supported in the record, and instead appear to be based on impermissible use of hindsight after review of the ’742 patent, rather than on a supported reason to modify the heating configuration in Hon ’043’s atomizer. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (stating that the fact finder must be aware “of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning”). In order to establish a motivation to combine the references, Petitioner needed to explain sufficiently what would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to consider modifying the Hon ’043 atomizer to include a “heating wire wound on a part of the porous component” as recited in claims 2 and 3. Petitioner failed to provide such an explanation.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,365,742 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,365,742 - LG Electronics, Inc. v. Broadcom CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 19, 2017 · IPR2017-01624 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Diaz did not disclose internally reprogrammable hardware accelerators, and the other grounds did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“3. Construction of “configurable” In construing this term, we have considered the specification of the ’353 patent and its prosecution history. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxycinn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In accord with these portions of the ’844 patent specification and file history discussed supra, we conclude that a hardware accelerator is configurable only if its functionality can be internally reprogrammed. Thus, under our construction, an accelerator selected by an API or other instrumentality would not itself be “configurable.” This will be discussed further infra.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, as Patent Owner argues, Diaz ’353 does not explicitly or inherently disclose hardware accelerators that are configurable to perform decoding functions according to a plurality of decoding methods. In Diaz ’533 the overall decoder — as opposed to the constituent hardware accelerators — is configurable in that the processor controls which hardware accelerators are activated. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5–8. We see no meaningful distinction in this respect between Diaz ’353 and Sullivan ’021 which, as discussed above, discloses an API that is configurable to select various hardware accelerators, but which are not themselves configurable, to assist in the decoding process. See Prelim. Resp. 6. In sum, the functionality of the hardware accelerators of Diaz ’353 cannot be internally reprogrammed, but rather can only be bypassed or reused for various operations. Therefore, in accord with our claim construction set forth above, we determine that those hardware accelerators are not “configurable” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“C. Obviousness of Claims 8 and 14 over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, and of Claim 12 over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim As discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Diaz ’353 discloses the claim 1 requirement of configurable hardware accelerators. Claims 8, 12, and 14 depend from claim 1 and so also include this requirement by virtue of their dependency. Petitioner’s obviousness grounds directed to these claims is premised on Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 1 that Diaz ’353 discloses configurable hardware accelerators. Pet. 51–63. Petitioner does not provide argument or evidence — aside from the above-considered anticipation arguments based on Diaz ’353 alone — that the combination of Diaz ’353 with Purcell ’483, Fandrianto ’459 or Kim teaches or suggests “a hardware accelerator . . . configurable to perform the decoding function according to a plurality of decoding methods.” Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 8 and 14 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Purcell ’483, or of claim 12 as obvious over Diaz ’353 and Fandrianto ’459 or Kim.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Diaz ’353.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,284,844 - Smith & Nephew, Inc. / Arthrocare Corp. v. Arthrex, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00918 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 10 and 11 unpatentable as obvious because the cited commercial-success evidence had little probative weight.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(d) Rehearing. . . . 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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“Moreover, even if we were now to consider Exhibit 2013 and Professor Gall’s Declaration testimony about Ex. 2013, at best this evidence would merely create a presumption of nexus. Req. Reh’g. 6 (“a nexus should be presumed”). Establishing a presumption of nexus, however, does not establish commercial success or patentability. In re Kao, 639 F.3d at 1067 (when secondary considerations are present, “they are not always dispositive”); see also Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Although secondary considerations must be taken into account, they do not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion.”). As discussed above, the evidence of commercial success based on the sales data presented in the declaration testimony of Mr. Holter (Ex. 2029) and Mr. Vellturo (Ex. 2025) is entitled to little probative weight. Even if we were to attempt to balance this commercial success evidence against the substantial prior art evidence that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious, as discussed in our Final Written Decision, it would not change our conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious. See Fin. Dec. 68, 75. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument “that the evidence of record regarding commercial success sufficiently rebuts any showing of obviousness of claims 10 and 11.” Req. Reh’g. 6.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,821,541 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2017 · IPR2017-01253 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving in place the denials of institution because the petitions did not sufficiently support the challenges based on Aboul-Hosn.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: 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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“supporting evidence presented in the Petition and determined it insufficient to institute trial. See, e.g., Dec. 10 (“Ultimately, the ’1026 and ’1027 Petitions are deficient because of the failure to explain sufficiently and support the challenges therein.”). We are not persuaded that we abused our discretion in reaching that determination.9 Disagreeing with our Decision is not, by itself, an appropriate basis for rehearing. 8 Even if Aboul-Hosn’s statement was intended only to contrast Figure 23 with Figure 24, the Petition remains deficient for failing to establish sufficiently that Figure 23 is part of the Figure 1–13 embodiment or provide a sufficient rationale to modify the embodiments disclosed in Aboul-Hosn. See Dec. 9–10. 9 Petitioner includes additional argument in its Request directed to rationale for the combination of Aboul-Hosn’s teachings from Figures 1–13 with those from Figure 23. In the Petition, Petitioner did not propose sufficient rationale for combining the various teachings from Aboul-Hosn with one another. See Dec. 10.” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,597,437 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2017 · IPR2017-01207 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing requests, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the petitions insufficiently supported their challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: 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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“There is no express disclosure from Aboul-Hosn identified by Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 9), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other in Aboul-Hosn. But, in context, the meaning is different. Figure 23 is a different embodiment than Figure 24.” Id. The entire sentence spanning lines 20–21 on page 30 of Aboul-Hosn reads: “Figures 23 and 24 illustrate two different embodiments of the present invention.” Ex. 1004, 30:20–21. We are not persuaded that we misread that sentence. That sentence specifically references Figures 23 and 24 as two different embodiments, meaning that Figures 23 and 24 are each different embodiments, not only with respect to one another, but also with respect to the other embodiments disclosed.8” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,597,437 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2017 · IPR2017-01029 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denials of institution because the petitions did not sufficiently support their obviousness challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: 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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“There is no express disclosure from Aboul-Hosn identified by Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 9), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,327,068 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2017 · IPR2017-01028 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on its asserted challenges.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the 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. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We further note that 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: 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 in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“assessment of all evidence in the record to determine whether the challenged claims would have been obvious. Rather, the Decision to deny institution of inter partes review was based on Petitioner’s failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of success at trial based on the arguments presented in the Petition, and the evidence relied upon in support of those particular arguments. Petitioner has the burden of showing, in its petition, a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). That reasonable likelihood is measured by considering the analysis offered by Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (setting forth the requirements of a petition, including specificity and identification of support).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“There is no express disclosure from Aboul-Hosn identified by Petitioner, in the Petition, or even in its Request, that the pump in Figures 1– 13 is included in Figure 23. In fact, and as noted in our Decision (Dec. 9), Aboul-Hosn expressly states that “Figure[] 23 . . . illustrate[s a] different embodiment[] of the present invention” (Ex. 1004, 30:20–21). Petitioner faults our characterization of the above passage from Aboul-Hosn, noting “[t]he ellipses, missing language and brackets are materially important.” Req. 12. Petitioner contends that “[t]he Board’s errant paraphrase gives the misimpression that Figure 23 is an entirely different invention than any other in Aboul-Hosn. But, in context, the meaning is different. Figure 23 is a different embodiment than Figure 24.” Id. The entire sentence spanning lines 20–21 on page 30 of Aboul-Hosn reads: “Figures 23 and 24 illustrate two different embodiments of the present invention.” Ex. 1004, 30:20–21. We are not persuaded that we misread that sentence. That sentence specifically references Figures 23 and 24 as two different embodiments, meaning that Figures 23 and 24 are each different embodiments, not only with respect to one another, but also with respect to the other embodiments disclosed.8” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,327,068 - Unified Patent Inc. v. Plectrum LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2017 · IPR2017-01430 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place the denial of institution for claims 1–6, 12–14, and 21–24 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. DISCUSSION A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, 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 the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not shown unpatentable
“The Request for Rehearing repeatedly refers to alleged mischaracterizations in Patent Owner’s assertions. However, as discussed in the Decision, it is the failure of the Petition to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the challenged claims are obvious—and not the Patent Owner’s assertions—that was determinative. See Dec. 14–16. We are aware, as the Petitioner argues (see Req. Reh’g 4–5), that there is no requirement under § 103 that claim terms be described verbatim in a prior art reference. As discussed in the Decision, however, the issue of an explicit disclosure of the term “row” in Cheriton was not in itself determinative. See Dec. 14–16. The Decision states that institution was denied because the Petition failed demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the obviousness challenge based on lack of adequate support in Cheriton for the alleged teaching of a comparison of values associated with a row in a cache, as well as the lack of support for the expert’s view that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to compare the cache value by row. Id. The disclosures in Cheriton that Petitioner relied upon fail to disclose or suggest the use of rows in caches. Id. at 14–15. And, Petitioner expert’s testimony regarding the knowledge of one of skill in the art concerning row comparisons in caches is conclusory and, therefore, deserved little to no credit. Id. at 15; see Perreira v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“An expert opinion is no better than the soundness of the reasons supporting it.”). Petitioner’s argument that Fujishima’s disclosure of 4-way set associative cache organized by rows, which corroborates its expert’s testimony, misses the point. Although the use of rows in 4-way set associative caches may have been known, the Petition fails to provide sufficient support to identify why one of skill in the art would view Cheriton as teaching or suggesting the specific limitations associated with the use of rows.” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“requirement under § 103 that claim terms be described verbatim in a prior art reference. As discussed in the Decision, however, the issue of an explicit disclosure of the term “row” in Cheriton was not in itself determinative. See Dec. 14–16. The Decision states that institution was denied because the Petition failed demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the obviousness challenge based on lack of adequate support in Cheriton for the alleged teaching of a comparison of values associated with a row in a cache, as well as the lack of support for the expert’s view that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to compare the cache value by row. Id. The disclosures in Cheriton that Petitioner relied upon fail to disclose or suggest the use of rows in caches. Id. at 14–15. And, Petitioner expert’s testimony regarding the knowledge of one of skill in the art concerning row comparisons in caches is conclusory and, therefore, deserved little to no credit. Id. at 15; see Perreira v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., 33 F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“An expert opinion is no better than the soundness of the reasons supporting it.”). Petitioner’s argument that Fujishima’s disclosure of 4-way set associative cache organized by rows, which corroborates its expert’s testimony, misses the point. Although the use of rows in 4-way set associative caches may have been known, the Petition fails to provide sufficient support to identify why one of skill in the art would view Cheriton as teaching or suggesting the specific limitations associated with the use of rows.” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 5,978,951
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.