... as obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person ...
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art B. We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years of industry experience in one of these fields” ...
Based on our review of the ’722 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’722 patent and the prior art.
... Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person ...
... housing, such as that shown in Thorens231, because “without a housing, a consumer would be 35 IPR2024-00267 Patent 11,134,722 B2 forced to grip the heating element to remove the mouthpiece” which “could lead to injury ...
... of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to provide a mouthpiece housing for Thorens788 because the cartridge is replaceable, and without a housing, 38 IPR2024-00267 Patent 11,134,722 B2 a consumer would be forced to grip the heating element to remove the mouthpiece” which “could lead to injury ...
Here, however, we cannot reasonably discern any implicit argument in Petitioner’s arguments directed to common inventors, same alleged invention, and possible injury to the consumer, and the evidence discussed above that supports ...