• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

6 results

55 Final Written Decision original: JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC 318a

Document IPR2020-00886, No. 55 Final Written Decision original - JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC 318a (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2021)
Additionally, the Supreme Court informs us that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’686 ...
... person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. 26 IPR2020-00886 Patent 9,826,686 B2 “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in ...
... 20 in FIG. 1), it can be ensured that even though the user misoperates the operation assembly, e.g., inadvertently pulls the trigger B, the motor is locked and cannot be started, thereby preventing accidental movement from causing injury ...
11 POSITA is an acronym commonly used in patent law jargon to mean a person of ordinary skill in the art. 31 IPR2020-00886 Patent 9,826,686 B2 Mr. Smith opines that “[t]he horizontal ‘accommodating level’ is the claimed ‘accommodating position relative to the main body.’” Id. Mr. Smith fails to explain with ...
See Reply 10 (“Thus, [a person having ordinary skill in the art] would have understood Outils’ Figure 10 to include hold-to-run lever 30 . . . and its electric supply contactor from Figure 1”). That is, we understand that 47 IPR2020-00886 Patent 9,826,686 B2 ...
Petitioner does not provide any such explanation, reinforcing our understanding that Petitioner relies on the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the embodiment of Figure 10 to include, without modification, hold-to-run control component 30 controlling an electrical supply contactor from Figure 1. 48 IPR2020-00886 ...
Fourth, Petitioner’s reliance on Outils’s disclosure that, “[a]lthough the rotation of the cutting blade is subordinated to a hold-to-run safety control, the risk of injury due to projections or the accidental entry of a digit into the cutting zone ...
... and protects the user against any risk of injury during or in between these operations”). Petitioner does not explain adequately, nor do we discern, how this 53 IPR2020-00886 Patent 9,826,686 B2 statement would inform a person ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

55 Final Written Decision original: JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC 318a

Document IPR2020-00884, No. 55 Final Written Decision original - JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC 318a (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2021)
... is that when the handle 20 does not rotate to the designated position . . . even though the user . . . inadvertently pulls the trigger B, the motor is locked and cannot be started, thereby preventing accidental movement from causing injury ...
... forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person ...
... Bowden cable of Figure 1 is replaced in Figure 10, [a person having ordinary skill in the art] would understand Figure 10 must still include a user’s on/off component even though none is illustrated.” Reply 7. Petitioner adds that a person ...
That is, we understand that Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the embodiment of Outils’s Figure 10 already had a specific type of control device—the hold-to-run control component 30 controlling an electrical supply contactor from the ...
Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Reed persuasively explains why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the embodiment of Figure 10 to have hold-to-run control component 30 connected to an electrical supply contactor, rather than a motor brake or brake coupling. That is, ...
34 IPR2020-00884 Patent 9,596,806 B2 Mr. Reed, for example, provides no explanation as to why “operation assembly 30” is part of the embodiment of Figure 10 or how it “activate[s] the motor.” As another example, Mr. Reed does not describe, in his declaration, the role played in Outils’s mower by the electrical supply contactor, how that role may differ from a motor brake or brake coupling, or why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the embodiment of Figure 10 must have an electrical supply contactor over a motor brake or brake coupling. In yet another example, Mr. Reed does not explain in his ...
36 IPR2020-00884 Patent 9,596,806 B2 Fourth, Petitioner’s reliance on Outils’s disclosure that, “[a]lthough the rotation of the cutting blade is subordinated to a hold-to-run safety control, the risk of injury due to projections or the ...
... injury during or in between these operations”). Petitioner does not explain adequately, nor do we discern, how this statement would have informed a person having ordinary skill in the art that the mower includes hold-to-run control 30 and ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

54 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2020-00884, No. 54 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2021)
... is that when the handle 20 does not rotate to the designated position . . . even though the user . . . inadvertently pulls the trigger B, the motor is locked and cannot be started, thereby preventing accidental movement from causing injury ...
... forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person ...
... Bowden cable of Figure 1 is replaced in Figure 10, [a person having ordinary skill in the art] would understand Figure 10 must still include a user’s on/off component even though none is illustrated.” Reply 7. Petitioner adds that a person ...
That is, we understand that Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the embodiment of Outils’s Figure 10 already had a specific type of control device—the hold-to-run control component 30 controlling an electrical supply contactor from the ...
Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Reed persuasively explains why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the embodiment of Figure 10 to have hold-to-run control component 30 connected to an electrical supply contactor, rather than a motor brake or brake coupling. That is, ...
34 IPR2020-00884 Patent 9,596,806 B2 Mr. Reed, for example, provides no explanation as to why “operation assembly 30” is part of the embodiment of Figure 10 or how it “activate[s] the motor.” As another example, Mr. Reed does not describe, in his declaration, the role played in Outils’s mower by the electrical supply contactor, how that role may differ from a motor brake or brake coupling, or why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the embodiment of Figure 10 must have an electrical supply contactor over a motor brake or brake coupling. In yet another example, Mr. Reed does not explain in his ...
36 IPR2020-00884 Patent 9,596,806 B2 Fourth, Petitioner’s reliance on Outils’s disclosure that, “[a]lthough the rotation of the cutting blade is subordinated to a hold-to-run safety control, the risk of injury due to projections or the ...
... injury during or in between these operations”). Petitioner does not explain adequately, nor do we discern, how this statement would have informed a person having ordinary skill in the art that the mower includes hold-to-run control 30 and ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

105 Final Decision: JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Claims Unpatentable Granting Patent Owners Contingent Motion to Amend

Document IPR2020-00130, No. 105 Final Decision - JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining Some Claims Unpatentable Granting Patent Owners Contingent Motion to Amend (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 202...
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person ...
... person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). Petitioner provides two alternative definitions for a person having ordinary skill in the art. First, Petitioner asserts that if a person of ordinary skill in the art “was a medical doctor, s/he would ...
Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art, which allow the ordinarily skilled artisan to be either a medical doctor or an engineer, as they are ...
Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire ...
Given these characteristics, Patent Owner posits that if Kontos’s extension catheter were subject to backout force it may “rotate, bend, or ‘crunch up,’ risking damage to the PTCA balloon catheter and injury to the patient.” Id. at 27–28 ...
Third, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a side opening would reduce the force a physician would need to exert to advance the catheter through tortuous vasculature.
Graham, Azzalini, and Thompson testifiy that each of these approaches presented significant difficulties related to time, expense, and potential injury to the patient.
With respect to the relative sizes of the guiding catheter and support catheter of Kontos, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to resize Kontos’s device in order to implement Takahashi’s 5- in-6 system, because Takahashi “teaches that using a catheter-in-catheter assembly—in particular, an assembly that ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

96 Other Not for motions: Redacted Final Written Decision

Document IPR2017-01587, No. 96 Other Not for motions - Redacted Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2018)

cite Cite Document

24 Final Decision: Final Written Decision 35 USC 318 and 37 CFR 4273

Document IPR2015-00208, No. 24 Final Decision - Final Written Decision 35 USC 318 and 37 CFR 4273 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

cite Cite Document