Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
... meaning is incorrect on the theory that it encompasses “an unlimited number of interconnections” and is “not supported by the claim language or the specification and contradicts expert testimony that clearly demonstrates how a [person ...
... § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject 10 IPR2017-00127 Patent 9,339,079 B2 matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person ...
Petitioner contends that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent training in mechanical engineering, and would have gained substantial experience in the structural design of flexible elements and plastic ...
In that regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hinrichs, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience with biomechanical systems, such as shoes.
In particular, Petitioner first proposes the following annotated version: According to Petitioner, the above-reproduced Figure 17 “depicts how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the directional element would look with the center island material removed to form a single longitudinal groove.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 85–86). Petitioner further proposes the ...
In supporting its proposed combination, Petitioner postulates that it amounts “to a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that would yield predictable results,” and “well within the knowledge and skill of persons of ...
A person with experience in biomechanics would not modify shoes in a way that increases instability medial-lateral instability, as this increases the risk of injury to the wearer.