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

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

9 results

56 Final Decision: Final Written Decision Public Version

Document IPR2017-00126, No. 56 Final Decision - Final Written Decision Public Version (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)
Admissibility of the Davis Declaration (Ex. 2007) Petitioner argues Dr. Davis’ Declaration should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 because Patent Owner has failed to establish that Dr. Davis qualifies as a person ...
... person of ordinary skill in the art, arguing that he himself qualifies as a person skilled in the art because of his embedded control systems experience, but that a person skilled in the art would not have combined two references disclosing ...
Patent Owner argues the definition of microcontroller is relevant because it reflects how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the meaning of this term, and corroborates Dr. Davis’ testimony on that meaning.
We note there is little difference between Petitioner’s proposed construction of microcontroller (see Pet. 34), which relies on the Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, and Dr. Davis’ testimony regarding how a person of skill in the ...
How a person of skill in the art would have understood the meaning of microcontroller is relevant not only to the proper understanding of claim 1, but to the proper understanding of the prior art used to challenge the patentability of claim ...
... whether PUBLIC VERSION IPR2017-00126 Patent 7,161,319 B2 20 PUBLIC VERSION AAPA can be used in inter partes reviews, whether the asserted prior art teaches all of the limitations of the challenged claims, whether a person ...
... skilled in the art would have been motivated by Jacobs to modify the microcontroller in Doppelt’s head unit 12 to make similar calculations of garage door position in order to (1) identify any door stalls or motor faults, (2) avoid injury ...
Petitioner has identified familiar elements known in the art and has identified rational reasons that a person skilled in the art would have combined these elements in the manner proposed, and Mr. Lipoff testifies that a person skilled in the ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

57 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2020-01199, No. 57 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2021)
... 1996 Exhibit No. 1004 Feb. 14, 1995 Jan. 22, 1991 1005 1006 8 IPR2020-01199 Patent 7,802,571 B2 Brower, R.G., M.D. et al., “Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volumes as Compared with Traditional Tidal Volumes for Acute Lung Injury ...
... For each of the above-listed publications, Petitioner provides evidence to show “the authenticity of the documents” and “when and how each of these documents was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons ...
... 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 ...
It is not necessary for Dr. Imbruce to demonstrate that he spent the bulk of his career personally designing mechanical ventilators. Indeed, to testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be one of ordinary ...
... use of increased FiO2s and incremental application of PEEP.” Id. at 13 (bottom of second col.) ‒ 14 (top of first col.). Carmichael discloses that in the early 1990s it was recognized that peak inspiratory pressures could induce lung injury ...
“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
... ARDSNET is an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine reporting on the results of a trial to determine whether ventilation with lower tidal volumes would improve the clinical outcomes in patients with acute lung injury ...
... personal knowledge in order to testify as a fact witness, Dr. Anderson, as one of the named authors of the paper in question has shown that he has the requisite personal knowledge to testify. See Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 3–22 (explaining his personal ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

54 Other Not for motions: Final Written Decision Newly Redacted

Document IPR2019-00991, No. 54 Other Not for motions - Final Written Decision Newly Redacted (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)
... claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 ...
In an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, see ...
The application for Kastner was filed on June 4, 2007, which predates the conception date 33 IPR2019-00991 Patent 8,602,287 B2 useful in hand-held power tools” to “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of ...
See Ex. 1020, 139:13–21 (Q: “Is it your opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look only at prior art that describes endocutters or similarly minimally invasive surgical instruments?” A: “It’s my opinion that they would most ...
See Ex. 1014 ¶ 30 (stating that soft-starting can “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of the tool”).
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (construing the scope of analogous art broadly and stating that “familiar items may have 36 IPR2019-00991 Patent 8,602,287 B2 obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often ...
... person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Moreover, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill ...
Here, relying on Kastner, Petitioner asserts that “[s]oft-starting can also be useful in hand-held power tools” to “minimize fatigue and potential injury, while allowing greater control of the tool.” Pet. 62 (quoting Ex. 1014 ¶ 30); see also Ex. ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

48 Notice: Judgment Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unp...

Document IPR2019-00991, No. 48 Notice - Judgment Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims UnpatentablePUBLIC VERSION (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2021)

cite Cite Document

71 Termination Decision Document: Termination Decision Document

Document IPR2017-02141, No. 71 Termination Decision Document - Termination Decision Document (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019)
... extrinsic evidence in the form expert testimony and various federal and state regulations to contrast the industry’s definition of the terms “golf car” and “golf cart”—which “convey a person 10 IPR2017-02141 Patent 7,239,965 B2 or persons ...
That the “driver commands” need to be overridden or otherwise restricted presumes that the golf cart is being driven by a person who has independent control of the cart and is susceptible to driving in an unruly manner, in other 11 ...
Yamaha’s expert confirms that each of the above-described golf carts is a “ridable cart” that “conveys a person or persons.” See Ex. 2016, 62:4–65:22, 67:21–25.
Nonetheless, Yamaha argues at length that the term “golf cart” is a genus for two species of carts, namely, a “golf car” that carries a person and a “riderless cart,” such as a “caddie cart,” that carries only a golf bag.
Indeed, the NHSTA explains that “states from California to Florida” use the term “golf cart” (id. at 1), and notes California’s definition of “golf cart” as “a motor vehicle . . . designed to carry golf equipment and not more than two persons, ...
Club Car, in turn, proposes that it means “a person that rides in or on a motor vehicle while controlling its direction and speed.” PO Resp. 11.
... onboard the cart. See, e.g., id., Abstract (“inputs by the golf cart’s driver to the golf cart’s motor”), 1:30–31 (“golf carts for golfers to drive”), 1:41 (“malicious golf cart drivers . . . driving too fast or recklessly”), 2:28 (“overriding driver accelerator commands”), 2:63 (“without substantial interference with a golf game or driver duties”), 3:58–59 (“prevent injury ...
... a person in the seat.” Ex. 2016, 92:18–93:1; 88:11–15. And to the extent Yamaha’s expert qualifies that testimony by saying that the ’053 Application “doesn’t exclude the possibility of a riding cart” and “doesn’t preclude putting a person ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

72 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2017-02143, No. 72 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019)

cite Cite Document

43 Termination Decision Document: FINAL WRITTEN DECISIONInter Partes Review...

Document IPR2016-01437, No. 43 Termination Decision Document - FINAL WRITTEN DECISIONInter Partes Review35 USC sec 318a and 37 CFR sec 4273 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document

65 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2015-01920, No. 65 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2017)

cite Cite Document
1 2 >>