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

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

5 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

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

Document IPR2020-00887, No. 53 Final Written Decision original - JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC 318a (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2021)
... product safety standard which prescribes safety requirements for certain walk-behind power lawn mowers, including labeling and performance requirements.” Ex. 1008 § 1205.1(a).10 “The standard is intended to reduce the risk of injury ...
Petitioner also contends Mr. Smith is neither a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) nor qualified to offer opinions on behalf of a POSITA regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.
Equally unavailing is Petitioner’s reliance on Outils’s teaching that, “[a]lthough 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 ...
... the blade is stationary.”), 2:29–34 (teaching that “[t]he aim of the present invention” is to “ensure[] that the cut-grass receiving receptacle can be hooked and unhooked in a simple manner and protect[] the user against any risk of injury ...
According to Petitioner, a “POSITA would have been motivated to adopt safety measures into Reichart’s lawnmower to reduce the chance of injury to the user, and specifically to prevent the operation assembly from starting the motor ...
... it seeks to seal regards settlement-type communications under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, internal corporate operations, non-public internal corporate financials, third-party contracts and relationships, and internal personnel ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

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

Document IPR2020-00888, No. 53 Final Written Decision original - JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 USC 318a (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2021)
28 IPR2020-00888 Patent 10,070,588 B2 Mr. Smith is neither a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) nor qualified to offer opinions on behalf of a POSITA regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.
According to Petitioner, a “POSITA would have been motivated to adopt safety measures into Reichart’s lawnmower to reduce the chance of injury to the user, and specifically to prevent the operation assembly from starting the motor ...
Equally unavailing is Petitioner’s reliance on Outils’s teaching that, “[a]lthough 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 ...
... the blade is stationary.”), 2:29–34 (disclosing that “[t]he aim of the present invention” is to “ensure[] that the cut-grass receiving receptacle can be hooked and unhooked in a simple manner and protect[] the user against any risk of injury ...
... communications 64 IPR2020-00888 Patent 10,070,588 B2 under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, internal corporate operations, non-public internal corporate financials, third-party contracts and relationships, and internal personnel ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets