- Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,051,066 - Viasat, Inc. v. Advanced Media Networks, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00795 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ViaSat’s rehearing request, leaving in place denial of institution on claims 1–9, 13–21, 29–50, 67–82, 104, 105, 107, and 110 because it had not shown motivation to combine Norand with the Eng …
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified: (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, and opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“references disclose similar networks and share common goals were in support of its assertion that “[t]he disclosed communication protocols of the Eng Patent could be readily applied to the communications systems disclosed by Norand.” Pet. 25. As we discussed in our Decision, it is insufficient for Petitioner to state generally that the communication protocols used in Eng’s architecture could be readily applied in Norand’s architecture because communication networks involve several layers of protocols and Petitioner did not adequately address the TCP and IP protocols or the layers in which they operate. Decision 7, 20–21.” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,445,777 - Viasat, Inc v. Advanced Media Networks, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00796 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ViaSat’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not show that combining Norand with the Eng references would have been obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified: (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, and opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“references disclose similar networks and share common goals were in support of its assertion that “[t]he disclosed communication protocols of the Eng Patent could be readily applied to the communications systems disclosed by Norand.” Pet. 26–27. As we discussed in our Decision, it is insufficient for Petitioner to state generally that the communication protocols used in Eng’s architecture could be readily applied in Norand’s architecture because communication networks involve several layers of protocols and Petitioner did not adequately address the TCP and IP protocols or the layers in which they operate. Decision 7, 21–22.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“that a benefit of TCP/IP networks is that ‘there exist approaches to mobility management at the network layer, e.g., Mobile IP.” Req. Reh’g. 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:52–54). Petitioner does not identify where in the Petition it made such an argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The request must specifically identify . . . where each matter was previously addressed in a motion”). Petitioner did not explain in the Petition how the cited portion of the Eng patent describes a “benefit” of “TCP/IP networks.” Indeed, this is a new argument improperly raised for the first time in the Request. See id. When read with its surrounding context, the Eng patent discloses that in “TCP/IP networks, there exist approaches to mobility management at the network layer, e.g., Mobile IP.” Ex. 1004, 3:52–54. Petitioner did not explain sufficiently how this teaches any “benefits” of using TCP/IP, or how this demonstrates motivation to combine the Eng references with Norand.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,445,777 - Viasat, Inc v. Advanced Media Networks, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00629 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ViaSat’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because ViaSat did not show that combining Norand with the Eng references would have been obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified: (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, and opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In the Petition, Petitioner’s arguments that Norand and the Eng references disclose similar networks and share common goals were in support of its assertion that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that the disclosed communication protocols of the Eng references could be readily applied to the communications system disclosed by Norand.” Pet. 25. As we discussed in our Decision, it is insufficient for Petitioner to state generally that the communication protocols used in Eng’s architecture could be readily applied in Norand’s architecture because communication networks involve several layers of protocols and Petitioner did not adequately address the TCP and IP protocols or the layers in which they operate. Decision 7, 22–23.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“references disclose similar networks and share common goals were in support of its assertion that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that the disclosed communication protocols of the Eng references could be readily applied to the communications system disclosed by Norand.” Pet. 25. As we discussed in our Decision, it is insufficient for Petitioner to state generally that the communication protocols used in Eng’s architecture could be readily applied in Norand’s architecture because communication networks involve several layers of protocols and Petitioner did not adequately address the TCP and IP protocols or the layers in which they operate. Decision 7, 22–23.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also contends that the Eng patent “clearly teaches that a benefit of TCP/IP networks is that ‘there exist approaches to mobility management at the network layer, e.g., Mobile IP.” Req. Reh’g. 14 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:52–54). Petitioner does not identify where in the Petition it made such an argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The request must specifically identify . . . where each matter was previously addressed in a motion”). Indeed, this is a new argument improperly raised for the first time in the Request. See id. Petitioner did not explain in the Petition how the cited portion of the Eng patent describes a “benefit” of TCP/IP newtowrks.” When read with its surrounding context, the Eng patent discloses that in “TCP/IP networks, there exist approaches to mobility management at the network layer, e.g., Mobile IP.” Ex. 1004, 3:52–54. Petitioner did not explain sufficiently how this teaches any “benefits” of using TCP/IP, or how this demonstrates motivation to combine the Eng references with Norand.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,960,074 - Viasat, Inc v. Advanced Media Networks, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · IPR2016-00628 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied ViaSat’s rehearing request, leaving the denial of institution on claims 1–13, 28–37, 41–61, 91–107, 123, 126, 128–157, 160–167, 169, and 171 unchanged because the petition did not show motivation to combine.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“petition decision is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party seeking rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified: (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, and opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“references disclose similar networks and share common goals were in support of its assertion that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that the disclosed communication protocols of the Eng references could be readily applied to the communications system disclosed by Norand.” Pet. 24. As we discussed in our Decision, it is insufficient for Petitioner to state generally that the communication protocols used in Eng’s architecture could be readily applied in Norand’s architecture because communication networks involve several layers of protocols and Petitioner did not adequately address the TCP and IP protocols or the layers in which they operate. Decision 7, 21–22.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“explain[ed] sufficiently why a person of skill in the art would have used the TCP/IP protocols with the network architecture taught in Norand” overlooks “the prior art and evidence of record which provides ample explanation as to ‘why’ a POSITA would find incorporating TCP/IP into Norand desirable.” Req. Reh’g. 14. With respect to this assertion, Petitioner does not identify the place in the Petition where Petitioner previously addressed such matters pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), other than the matter we addressed above, namely that Norand and Eng share a common goal of linking together mobile users. Id. at 14–15. slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,960,074 - Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01679 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 20–22 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claims 18–19 are obvious over …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“location.” See PO Resp. 21–22; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term “central monitoring device” is not further limited to a device that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 21–22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an open-ended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 20–22; Tr. 38:1–17. Though Patent Owner cites one dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constantly checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear that monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:2–31, 8:57–64. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe “central monitoring device” as “a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’901 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:13–23, 2:38–44. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’901 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’901 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. 3.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 6,225,901 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,225,901 - Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01688 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’403 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’403 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that a central monitoring device/service is a device/service that “watch[es], keep[s] track of, or check[s]” on something “from a central location.” See PO Resp. 21; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term central monitoring device/service is not further limited to a device/service that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 20– 22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an openended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit this claim term in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 19–22; Tr. 38:1–17. The term “central monitoring service” does not appear in the Specification. Though Patent Owner cites a dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constant checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:6–35, 8:63–9:2. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the term central monitoring device/service in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–20, 6:42–47, 7:17–25, 7:57–64, 8:28–42); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–34. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe central monitoring device/service as a device or service “that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’403 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–27, 2:42–48. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–44. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers. 4.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,940,403 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,940,403 - Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Shire LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-02009 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Amerigen’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 uninstituted because Mehta did not disclose the claimed release limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 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). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must, in relevant part, “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Amerigen’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“These arguments are not persuasive. First, Petitioner cites no authority for the proposition that a generic disclosure, such as that discussed above, is an express disclosure of every possible permutation of that generic disclosure. Second, even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that Mehta’s combined disclosures constitute an express disclosure of a composition capable of delayed release of “essentially all [of the drug] . . . within about 60 minutes,” non-instituted claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, and 11 further require that the delayed release is enteric (i.e., the composition releases the second dose of the drug in the intestines, not the stomach). As we noted in the Decision, however, Mehta does not use the word “enteric,” nor does Mehta discuss delivery of the delayed dose to the intestines. Dec. 28. Nevertheless, we considered the possibility that Mehta might inherently disclose a composition that releases into the intestine not less than 80% of the second dose of the drug within about 60 minutes of the delayed release. Accordingly, we turned to Mehta’s Examples 1–5, but determined that not one of the exemplified delayed release compositions achieved a release of “essentially all” of the drug from a delayed release coating within about 60 minutes—regardless of whether the delay was long enough to be considered enteric.3 Id. at 24. As we noted in the Decision,” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“This argument is not persuasive. We considered, for example, Dr. Elder’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect “that the number of variables and number of experimental runs to optimize the coating for the amphetamine would present no unusual problems of technology or expense” because one “can use statistical experimental design to optimize a formulation within the 21 trials that Mehta discloses to design one for amphetamine salts” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 471), as well as Dr. Elder’s testimony that one would expect “that routine optimization of the coating using the parameters identified by Mehta would provide enough guidance for controlling the release timing” (id. ¶ 512). Nevertheless, we found the actual results reported by Mehta to be more compelling. As we stated in the Decision: [N]one of Mehta’s delayed release formulations that could be considered to be enteric by virtue of their delay periods (i.e., those with delays of 4 or 5 hours) had release rates of “essentially all” of the drug anywhere near the required time period. Even if Mehta could be read to suggest that a delay of 4 or 5 hours followed by a release of essentially all of the delayed dose within 60 minutes would be desirable, we are not persuaded that Mehta’s disclosure that “the amount of drug released is influenced by: amount of coating, ratio of the two 4 Amerigen supported its challenges with the Declaration of Edmund J. Elder, Jr., Ph.D., R.Ph., executed September 30, 2015 (“Elder Declaration”) (Ex. 1005). polymers, amount of talc, and curing time” is adequate guidance for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve such a dosage form. In general, Mehta demonstrates that longer delays are accompanied by longer release times, with formulations that could be considered to provide enteric release (i.e., a release after a 4 or 5 hour [delay]) having 85% release times of 8 or more hours. Dec. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003, Table 1).” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Shire LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-02009 · APJ Toni R Scheiner · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Shire’s rehearing request and confirmed claim 25 is in the trial only through its dependency from claims 18–20, not claims 2 or 13.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We are not persuaded and decline to alter the Order concluding the Decision of April 19, 2016 in any way. Claim 25 would fall should Petitioner prevail in its obviousness challenge—so long as claim 25’s dependency from claims 18–20 remains. However, we take this opportunity to confirm that claim 25 is part of the trial only to the extent it depends from claims 18–20, and not to the extent it depends from non-instituted claims 2 and 13.” slip op. at 4
None - Microsoft Corporation And Microsoft Mobile, Inc. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01928 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Jahagirdar and Schultz because their combination would have been a predictable substitution of familiar touch sensors for keys.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence and arguments, Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3, and 20 of the ’494 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jahagirdar and Schultz. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that claims 1, 3, and 20 of the ’494 patent have been shown to be unpatentable; and” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelOther
“touch sensors were not limited by size or arrangement, and a person of ordinary skill could have taken the Schultz sensors and put them into touch sensors the size of the buttons on Jahagirdar. Ex. 1017, 138:17–21, 140:2– 13. Additionally, as Dr. Morley acknowledges, the claims of the ’494 patent contain no limitations as to the physical form, internal architecture, or arrangement of the touch sensors. Id. at 172:12–173:10. Patent Owner presents no argument that the proposed combination would have been beyond the capabilities or knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. As the Supreme Court has stated, “when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (internal quotation marks omitted). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation . . . § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. As illustrated by Schultz, the use of a touch sensor as an alternative to a mechanical push button was well known in the prior art. See Ex. 1005; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 40–43. We agree that the combination of Jahagirdar and Schultz teaches the elements of claim 1 as arranged, and we determine the proposed combination would have been obvious, because it merely involves substitution of familiar elements, the combination of which yields predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In particular, we agree that the proposed combination is the simple substitution or modification of Jahagirdar’s keys with Schultz’s known touch sensor. This is, in other words, a textbook case of obviousness. See Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This is a textbook case of” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As the Supreme Court has stated, “when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (internal quotation marks omitted). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation . . . § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. As illustrated by Schultz, the use of a touch sensor as an alternative to a mechanical push button was well known in the prior art. See Ex. 1005; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 40–43. We agree that the combination of Jahagirdar and Schultz teaches the elements of claim 1 as arranged, and we determine the proposed combination would have been obvious, because it merely involves substitution of familiar elements, the combination of which yields predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In particular, we agree that the proposed combination is the simple substitution or modification of Jahagirdar’s keys with Schultz’s known touch sensor. This is, in other words, a textbook case of obviousness. See Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This is a textbook case of when the asserted claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield predictable results.”). Patent Owner does not point us to objective evidence of nonobviousness to overcome the textbook case of obviousness here.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s position that the proposed combination would increase accidental actuations when grabbing or holding Jahagirdar’s mobile station, Petitioner points to Dr. Morley’s testimony that touch sensors would alleviate accidental actuation by inanimate objects (e.g., “clothes, objects in a bag, [and] surfaces of furniture”). Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1017, 157:20–158:23; Ex. 2006 ¶ 63). Accordingly, Petitioner argues a person having ordinary skill in the art looking to reduce inadvertent actuation by inanimate objects would be motivated to incorporate Schultz’s touch sensor. Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 4–5). Moreover, Petitioner’s unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates Schultz’s touch sensor could have been integrated into Jahagirdar’s keys 144 in multiple ways, depending upon what might have been convenient or desirable. Id. at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 75); Ex. 1023 ¶ 5. For example, a person of ordinary skill would have been readily able to relocate those touch sensors to different locations, or “one of skill could have easily programmed Jahagirdar’s controller such that touch sensor inputs were only recognized at appropriate times for example, depending on whether the mobile station 102 was opened or closed.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 75. In such a way, inadvertent actuation of the touch sensors would be minimized or eliminated.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,265,494 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,265,494
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.