A small increase in a Prior Art’s taught range needs to have sufficient reason for the modification to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103
| August 6, 2021
Chemours Co. FC, LLC vs Daikin Ind., LTD
Decided on July 22, 2021
NEWMAN, DYK, and REYNA. Opinion by Reyna. Concurring and Dissenting in part by Dyk.
Summary:
Chemours Company FC, LLC, appealed the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from two inter partes reviews brought by Daikan Industries, Ltd. Chemours argued on appeal that the Board erred in its obviousness factual findings and did not provide adequate support for its analysis of objective indicia of nonobviousness. The CAFC found that the Board’s decision on obviousness was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board erred in its analysis of objective indicia of nonobviousness. Consequently, they reversed the Board’s decision.
Background:
Chemours Company FC, LLC, appealed the final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from two inter partes reviews brought by Daikan Industries, Ltd., et al. Chemours argues on appeal that the Board erred in its obviousness factual findings and did not provide adequate support for its analysis of objective indicia of nonobviousness.
Two patents were at issue. U.S. Patent No. 7,122,609 (the “’609 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,076,4312 (the “’431 patent”). The representative ’609 patent relates to a unique polymer for insulating communication cables formed by pulling wires through melted polymer to coat and insulate the wires, a process known as “extrusion.”
Claim 1 of the ’609 patent is representative of the issues on appeal:
1. A partially-crystalline copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount corresponding to a hexafluoropropylene index (HFPl) of from about 2.8 to 5.3, said copolymer being polymerized and isolated in the absence of added alkali metal salt, having a melt flow rate of within the range of about 30±3 g/10 min, and having no more than about 50 unstable end groups/106 carbon atoms.
The Board found all challenged claims of the ’609 patent and the ’431 patent to be unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,541,588 (“Kaulbach”).
On appeal, Chemours argued that Daikin did not meet its burden of proof because it failed to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would modify Kaulbach’s polymer to achieve the claimed invention.
The Kaulbach reference teaches a polymer for wire and cable coatings that can be processed at higher speeds and at higher temperatures. Kaulbach highlights that the polymer of the invention has a “very narrow molecular weight distribution.” Kaulbach discovered that prior beliefs that polymers in high-speed extrusion application needed broad molecular weight distributions were incorrect because “a narrow molecular weight distribution performs better.” In order to achieve a narrower range, Kaulbach reduced the concentration of heavy metals such as iron, nickel and chromium in the polymer.
In the Kaulbach example relied on by the Board, Sample A11, Kaulbach’s melt flow rate is 24 g/10 min, while the claimed rate of Claim 1 of the ‘609 patent is 30±3 g/10 min.
The Board found that Kaulbach’s melt flow rate range fully encompassed the claimed range, and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to increase the melt flow rate of Kaulbach’s preferred embodiment to within the claimed range to coat wires faster. Specifically, the Board found:
We also are persuaded that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to increase the [melt flow rate] of Kaulbach’s Sample A11 to be within the recited range in order to achieve higher processing speeds, because the evidence of record teaches that achieving such speeds may be possible by increasing a [polymer’s] [melt flow rate].
In addition, the Board found that the portions of Kaulbach’s disclosure lacked specificity regarding what is deemed “narrow” and “broad,” and that it would have been obvious to “broaden” the molecular weight distribution of the claimed polymer.
Second, Chemours argued that the Board legally erred in its analysis of objective indicia of nonobviousness by showings of commercial success finding an insufficient nexus between the claimed invention and Chemours’s commercial polymer, as the Board required market share evidence to show commercial success.
CAFC Decision:
- Obviousness and teaching away
The CAFC found that the Board ignored the express disclosure in Kaulbach that teaches away from the claimed invention and relied on teachings from other references that were not concerned with the particular problems Kaulbach sought to solve. In other words, the Board did not adequately grapple with why a skilled artisan would find it obvious to increase Kaulbach’s melt flow rate to the claimed range while retaining its critical “very narrow molecular-weight distribution.”
The Court maintained that the Board’s reasoning does not explain why a POSA would be motivated to increase Kaulbach’s melt flow rate to the claimed range, when doing so would necessarily involve altering the inventive concept of a narrow molecular weight distribution polymer. The Court held that this is particularly true in light of the fact that the Kaulbach reference appears to teach away from broadening molecular weight distribution and the known methods for increasing melt flow rate.
Specifically, Kaulbach includes numerous examples of processing techniques that are typically used to increase melt flow rate, which Kaulbach cautions should not be used due to the risk of obtaining a broader molecular weight distribution.
These factors do not demonstrate that a POSA would have had a “reason to attempt” to get within the claimed range, as is required to make such an obviousness finding.
As Chemours persuasively argues, the Board needed competent proof showing a skilled artisan would have been motivated to, and reasonably expected to be able to, increase the melt flow rate of Kaulbach’s polymer to the claimed range when all known methods for doing so would go against Kaulbach’s invention by broadening molecular weight distribution.
The CAFC therefore held that the Board relied on an inadequate evidentiary basis and failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation that is based on substantial evidence for why a POSA would have been motivated to increase Kaulbach’s melt flow rate to the claimed range, when doing so would necessarily involve altering the inventive concept of a narrow molecular weight distribution polymer.
- Commercial success
In addition, Chemours argued that the Board legally erred in its analysis of objective indicia of nonobviousness finding an insufficient nexus between the claimed invention and Chemours’s commercial polymer, and its requirement of market share evidence to show commercial success.
Specifically, Chemours argued that the Board improperly rejected an extensive showing of commercial success by finding no nexus on a limitation-by-limitation basis, rather than the invention as a whole. Chemours contended that the novel combination of these properties drove the commercial success of Chemours’s commercial polymer. Second, Chemours argued the Board improperly required Chemours to proffer market share data to show commercial success.
The CAFC held that contrary to the Board’s decision, the separate disclosure of individual limitations, where the invention is a unique combination of three interdependent properties, does not negate a nexus. The Court recognized that concluding otherwise would mean that nexus could never exist where the claimed invention is a unique combination of known elements from the prior art.
Further, the Court held, quoting prior caselaw, that the Board, erred in its analysis that gross sales figures, absent market share data, “are inadequate to establish commercial success.”
“When a patentee can demonstrate commercial success, usually shown by significant sales in a relevant market, and that the successful product is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent, it is presumed that the commercial success is due to the patented invention.” J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997); WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1329. However, market share data, though potentially useful, is not required to show commercial success. See Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The CAFC therefore reversed the Board’s finding of obviousness of the ‘609 and ‘431 claims at issue.
- Dissent
Judge Dyk dissented in part as to the strength of the teaching away by Kaulback. Specifically, he noted that Kaulbach’s copolymer is nearly identical to the polymer disclosed by claim 1 of the ’609 patent. The only material difference between claim 1 and Kaulbach is that Kaulbach discloses (in Sample A11) a melt flow rate of 24 g/10 min, slightly lower than 27 g/10 min, the lower bound of the 30 ± 3 g/10 min rate claimed in claim 1 of the ’609 patent.
As to the teachings of Kaulbach, he went on to note that even though Kaulbach determined that “a narrow molecular weight distribution performs better,” it expressly acknowledged the feasibility of using a broad molecular weight distribution to create polymers for high speed extrusion coating of wires. Hence, Judge Dyk concluded that this is not a teaching away from the use of a higher molecular weight distribution polymer.
Contrary to the majority’s assertion, modifying the molecular weight distribution of Kaulbach’s disclosure of a 24 g/10 min melt flow rate to achieve the 27 g/10 min melt flow rate of claim 1 would hardly “destroy the basic objective” of Kaulbach as the majority claims.
Take away
- There must be clear motivation for a POSA to modify a claimed range even to a small extent. Evidence within the prior art that such a modification would not be beneficial maybe a sufficient teaching away and can negate a finding of increasing the range as an obvious modification. Patent prosecutors should be more assertive in requiring a clear showing of reasons to make a modification of increasing a range outside of a prior art’s taught range.
Who has Standing to Appeal of IPR Decision? And What is Teaching Away?
| April 21, 2021
General Electric Company v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, No. 2019-1319.
Decided on December 23, 2020
Before Lourie, Reyna and Hughes (Opinion by Hughes).
Summary
Raytheon had ’920 patent which was related to a gas turbine engine. GE filed IPR and PTAB reviewed the claim and found the patent is non-obvious. GE filed a request for rehearing challenging the PTAB’s application of the legal standard for both teaching away and motivation to combine. The PTAB denied the request for rehearing and GE appealed to the CAFC. Raytheon claimed that GE does not have standing to appeal because GE did not have the injury in fact. At the appeal, GE showed a concrete business plan as evidence of injury in fact, and the CAFC found that GE has a substantial risk of future infringement and has standing. Then, the CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s decision on obviousness issue. Upon review, the CAFC found that the PTAB correctly set forth the standard for teaching away, however, applied it erroneously. The CAFC also found that the PTAB lacked substantial evidence for its conclusion that GE did not establish a motivation to combine the prior arts. Therefore, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s decision and remanded the case to the PTAB.
Details
Background
Raytheon Technologies Corporation (“Raytheon”[1]) filed US Patent No.8,695,920 (“’920 patent”) in 2011 and the patent was issued in April 2014.
In December 2016, General Electric Company (“GE”), a competitor of Raytheon in the industry of commercial aviation, petitioned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for reviewing the 920 patent’s claims 1-4, 7-14, and 19. GE explained that the claims were obvious based on two prior art references, Wendus and Moxon.
Before the IPR institution Raytheon disclaimed claims 1-4, 7, 8, 17, and 19. The PTAB reviewed only claims 9 -14. After the IPR institution, Raytheon disclaimed 9 and the PTAB only ruled on claims 10-14.
The disputed claims 10-14 were depended on independent claim 9.
9. A method of designing a gas turbine engine comprising:
providing a core nacelle defined about an engine centerline axis;
providing a fan nacelle mounted at least partially around said core nacelle to define a fan bypass flow path for a fan bypass air-flow;
providing a gear train within said core nacelle;
providing a first spool along said engine centerline axis within said core nacelle to
drive said gear train, said first spool includes a first turbine section including be-tween three–six (3–6) stages, and a first compressor section;
providing a second spool along said engine centerline axis within said core nacelle, said second spool includes a second turbine section including at least two (2) stages and a second compressor section;
providing a fan including a plurality of fan blades to be driven through the gear train by the first spool, wherein the bypass flow path is configured to provide a bypass ratio of airflow through the bypass flow path di-vided by airflow through the core nacelle that is greater than about six (6) during engine operation.
10. The method as recited in claim 9, wherein said first turbine section defines a pressure ratio that is greater than about five (5.0).
11. The method as recited in claim 10, wherein a fan pressure ratio across the plurality of fan blades is less than about 1.45.
12. The method as recited in claim 11, wherein the gear train is configured to provide a speed reduction ratio greater than about 2.5:1.
13. The method as recited in claim 12, wherein the plurality of fan blades are configured to rotate at a fan tip speed of less than about 1150 feet/second during engine operation.
14. The method as recited in claim 13, wherein the second turbine section includes two (2) stages.
The PTAB concluded that Wendus taught away from combination with Moxon and GE did not establish the obviousness of claim 10 when considered as a whole. Therefore, the PTAB found claims 10-14 are nonobvious. GE filed a request for rehearing challenging the PTAB’s application of the legal standard for both teaching away and motivation to combine. The PTAB denied the request for rehearing and GE timely appealed to the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”).
Standing
Raytheon moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of standing because GE has never “sued or threatened to sue” for infringing the ’920 patent. Raytheon also mentioned that GE “had never alleged that an engine exists that presents a concrete and substantial risk of infringing the ’920 patent,”
In JTEKT[2], the CAFC found that when the appellant does not currently engage in infringing activity and “relies on potential infringement liability as a basis for injury in fact”, the appellant must show that “it has concrete plans for future activity that creates a substantial risk of future infringement or would likely cause the patentee to assert a claim of infringement.”
In prior lawsuit between the same parties GE v. UTC[3], GE failed to show the evidence. However, the CAFC shows some guideline of what kind of evidence do we need to have a standing to appeal IPR decision to CAFC. GE responds that it has alleged facts that show it “is currently undertaking activities” likely to lead Raytheon to sue it for infringement.
Here, GE has shown concrete plans for future activities:
- GE spent $10–12 million in 2019 developing a geared turbofan architecture and design;
- GE intends to keep developing its geared turbofan engine design;
- The design is GE’s technologically preferred design for the next-generation narrow body market;
- GE has offered this preferred geared turbofan design to Airbus;
- GE has also established that such a sale would raise a substantial risk of an infringement suit; and
- GE believes its preferred design raises a substantial risk of infringement.
GE explicitly stated that “this preferred geared turbofan design includes a gear train driven by the low-pressure spool and a two-stage high-pressure turbine.” The CAFC found that this GE’s declaration “plausibly establish that its preferred next-generation engine design substantially risks infringing the ’920 patent.” With these concrete plans, the CAFC found that GE has shown concrete plans raising a substantial risk of future infringement.
Obviousness
The CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s decision on Obviousness. The patent at issue is related to “turbofan gas turbine engines used to propel commercial airliners.” Typically, a turbofan engine has four main components, (1) the fan, (2) compressor, (3) combustor, and (4) turbine[4]. In a turbofan engine, there are two ways airflow, “bypass flow” and “core flow.” The bypass ratio is a ratio of bypass flow to core flow and it was known that a “higher bypass ratio increases fuel efficiency.”
In the industry, the high-pressure compressor and high-pressure turbine are referred to as the “high spool” and the low-pressure compressor and low-pressure turbine are referred to as the “low spool.” Ordinary, “direct-drive” turbofan engine has a low spool and all connected to the same shaft and rotate at the same speed. On the other hand, a high bypass ratio (fuel-efficient) turbofan, the difference of the diameter of the fan and the engine creates the difference of the rotational speed and the rotational speed is ideal compared to the low-pressure turbine.
Contrary to the ordinary “low spool” turbofan, Raytheon’s patent was a “‘geared’ turbofan which uses a gearbox mounted between the low-pressure compressor and the fan to reduce the rotational speed of the fan compared to the” low spool turbine. When the gearbox is used, “the fan to rotate more slowly than the rest of the low spool.” Therefore, each part can rotate at an optimal speed and create many benefits. Such as reducing engine fuel consumption, improving aerodynamic efficiency with less costly design, reducing the mechanical stress on the fan and improving safety, reducing torque on the low spool shaft and allowing to design smaller diameter shaft, and reducing engine noise.
During the IPR, GE explained that “Wendus discloses all elements of claims 9–14 except that it teaches a one-stage high-pressure turbine instead of the “at-least-two-stage” high-pressure turbine taught in claim 9 and narrowed to two stages in claim 14” and “Moxon concludes that because of increased performance demands on the high-pressure turbine required to improve fuel efficiency, “a move to one instead of two high pressure turbine stages is thought unlikely, although designs have been carried out and demonstrations have been run.”
However, the PTAB found that Wendus taught away from combination with Moxon “despite the PTAB’s prior findings of the benefits of the two-stage high-pressure turbine” and concluded “GE did “not establish the obviousness of claim 10 when considered as a whole.” Therefore, the PTAB found claims 10-14 are nonobvious.
Therefore, GE pointed the errors of the Board’s decision on three issues before the CAFC. As to the first issue, teaching away, GE asserted that “the PTAB errored by misreading Wendus to find that it disparages or discourages the use of a two-stage high pressure turbine, and therefore erred in finding that Wendus taught away from a two-stage high-pressure turbine.” For the second issue, artisan’s motivation to combine references, GE also argues that the PTAB “applied an overly rigorous requirement for motivation to combine the Wendus and Moxon references.” Lastly, GE argues that the PTAB also erred by requiring GE to show that an artisan would be motivated to retain the claimed performance parameters taught in Wendus in combining Wendus and Moxon.
Raytheon counter-argued that the CAFC must affirm the PTAB’s decision if there is substantial evidence of “(1) Wendus teaches away from modifying its advanced engine to add a two-stage high-pressure turbine; (2) no matter if Wendus teaches away, Wendus discloses a strong preference for a one-stage high-pressure turbine, undermining GE’s motivation-to-combine arguments; or (3) GE failed to establish a motivation for modifying the Wendus advanced engine to achieve the invention of claim 10, ‘as a whole.’”
CAFC stated that the PTAB correctly set forth the standard for teaching away.
“[a] reference does not teach away ‘if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed.’”
The PTAB found that criticism of the use of a two-stage high-pressure turbine in the prior art suggests a general preference for a one-stage high-pressure turbine.
By referencing Table 16 of Wendus[5], the PTAB concluded that “Wendus discourages the useof a two-stage high-pressure turbine rather than merely suggesting a general preference for a one-stage high-pressure turbine because…A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that modifying the Wendus [advanced] engine to include a two-stage turbine would have increased the weight and cost of the engine which Wendus criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages.”
However, the CAFC found that the PTAB misleads Table 16 in the full context of Wendus because “Wendus itself only weakly supports that a one-stage high-pressure turbine has weight and cost advantages over a two-stage high pressure turbine.” Also, the CAFC mentioned that “Wendus itself does not criticize the use of a two-stage turbine for weight or cost reasons” and “Wendus references neither efficiency nor number of parts in comparison to any other high-pressure turbine design.”
The CAFC also explained that “even if an artisan recognized that a one-stage turbine would have led to reduced engine weight and lower engine cost than a two-stage turbine, Wendus is hardly consistent in indicating that weight and cost concerns alone mandate the correct design choices of an improved engine, compared to other factors like fuel efficiency or reliability.”
“Wendus ‘expressly weigh[ed] the tradeoffs [between a one-stage and two-stage turbine] and cho[se] the one-stage option’ cannot withstand scrutiny.” Therefore, the CAFC conclude that “Wendus does not criticize, credit, or discourage the use of a two-stage high-pressure turbine” and there is no substantial evidence to support the PTAB’s conclusion of teaching away.
Secondly, the CAFC concluded that the PTAB lacks substantial evidence for its conclusion that GE did not establish a motivation to combine Wendus and Moxon. By referring the PharmaStem Therapeutics[6], the CAFC confirmed the standard of obviousness is that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to make the composition or device, or carry out the claimed process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”
The CAFC found that the PTAB again misread Wendus and applied “its faulty findings that Wendus described ‘the one-stage turbine as a critical and enabling technology providing significant advantages over a prior art engine having a two-stage turbine,’ and that ‘other [Wendus] engine components [being] specifically designed to accommodate the [one-stage] turbine[7].”
Finally, the CAFC concluded that the PTAB’s holding that GE did not establish the obviousness of claim 10 “as a whole” lacks substantial evidence. The CAFC pointed that “Wendus meets all the elements of claim 10 except for the two-stage high-pressure turbine, which Moxon discloses” and “GE does not merely identify each claim element as present in Wendus and Moxon. Instead, GE’s obviousness theory combines the elements disclosed in Wendus’s advanced engine with Moxon’s teaching of a two-stage high-pressure turbine to attain better turbine reliability and efficiency.”
Therefore, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s decision and remand the case to the PTAB.
Takeaway
- As to the standing requirement “injury in fact”, this case shows what degree the appellee needs to prove the concrete plans in the future and what type of evidence is appropriate. 35 U.S.C §319 states that “Any party to the inter partes review shall have the right to be a party to the appeal.” The law did not specifically state the minimum standing requirement to appeal of IPR decision.
- An appellant’s declaration that it believes the preferred design raises a substantial risk of infringement is also plausible only if the declaration was supported by the other evidence.
- When determining the obviousness by teaching away from the prior art references, the meaning must be interpreted by the entire reference, not the partial words in the reference.
- Teaching away argument needs “criticize” more than “preference.”
[1] During the appeal, Raytheon was known as United Technologies Corporation.
[2] JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto. LTD., 898 F.3d 1217, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2713 (2019).
[3] Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., 928 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
[4] The compressor pressurized the air come into the core flow. Then, the combustor mixed the compressed air and fuel and ignite and generates hot gas. The hot gas expands in the turbine and create power to rotate the blades in turbine.
[5] Wendus, See page 52 of https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20030067946/downloads/20030067946.pdf
[6] PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
[7] Final Written Decision at *13 (citations omitted).
PTAB Should Provide Adequate Reasoning and Evidence in Its Decision and Teaching Away Argument Requires More Than a General Preference
| August 26, 2020
ALACRITECH, INC. V. INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, LLC, DELL, INC.
July 31, 2020
Before Stoll, Chen, and Moore
Summary
The Federal Circuit reviewed the adequacy of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) obviousness findings under the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) requirement that the Board’s decisions be supported by adequate reasoning and evidence. The Federal Circuit agreed with Alacritech’s argument that the Board did not adequately support the finding. The Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the Board’s remaining obviousness determination. The Federal Circuit vacated in part and remanded the Board’s decision.
Background
Alacritech, Inc. owns the patent 8,131,880. Intel Corp., et al., (Intel) petitioned to the Board for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent ‘880. The Board’s final decisions found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. Alacritech appealed the Board’s obviousness decision for four independent claims.
The ‘880 patent relates to computer networking and is directed to a network-related apparatus and method for offloading certain network processing from a central processing unit (CPU) to an “intelligent network interface card.” Intel asserted that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Thia1 in view of Tanenbaum2. The Board agreed and held all of the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious in the final written decisions. On appeal in the Federal Circuit, one of the focus was on claim 41 reciting “a flow re-assembler disposed in the network interface” as follows:
| 41. An apparatus for transferring a packet to a host computer system, comprising: a traffic classifier, disposed in a network interface for the host computer system, configured to classify a first packet received from a network by a communication flow that includes said first packet; a packet memory, disposed in the network interface, configured to store said first packet; a packet batching module, disposed in the network interface, configured to determine whether another packet in said packet memory belongs to said communication flow; a flow re-assembler, disposed in the network interface, configured to re-assemble a data portion of said first packet with a data portion of a second packet in said communication flow; and a processor, disposed in the network interface, that maintains a TCP connection for the communication flow, the TCP connection stored as a control block on the network interface. |
Discussion
Alacritech argued that the Board’s analysis was inadequate to support its findings on claims 41-43. Independent claim 43 is similar to claim 41, but recites a limitation in the network interface with “a re-assembler for storing data portions of said multiple packets without header portions in a first portion of said memory.” The dispute was focused on where reassembly takes place in the prior art and whether that location satisfies the claim limitations. The alleged claims incorporate limitations that require reassembly in the network interface, as opposed to a central processor. Intel argued that “Thia . . . discloses a flow re-assembler on the network interface to re-assemble data portions of packets within a communication flow.” In response, Alacritech argued that “[n]either Thia nor Tanenbaum discloses a flow re-assembler that is part of the NIC.”
The Board recited some of the parties’ arguments and concluded that the asserted prior art teaches the reassembly limitations. Alacritech argued that the Board’s analysis did not adequately support its obviousness finding. The Federal Circuit reviewed the adequacy of the Board’s obviousness finding under the APA’s requirement that the Board’s decisions be supported by adequate reasoning and evidence. The Federal Circuit emphasized that the Board’s findings need not be perfect, but must be “reasonably discernable.” However, the Board failed to meet the requirement by explaining why it found those arguments persuasive. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the Board briefly recites two terse paragraphs from the parties’ arguments and, in doing so, “appears to misapprehend both the scope of the claims and the parties’ arguments.” Further, the Federal Circuit turned down Intel’s argument that it should prevail because the Board “soundly rejected” Alacritech’s arguments. But the Board’s rejection does not necessarily support the Board’s finding that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests reassembly in the network interface. The Board should meet the obligation to “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” The Federal Circuit, therefore, vacated the portion of the Board’s decision.
Alacritech successfully kept the ball rolling due to the Board’s inadequate reasoning and evidence. However, Alacritech did not substantially weaken the obviousness determination, and its teaching away argument on Tanenbaum hit the wall. Tanenbaum suggests on protocols for gigabit networks that “[u]sually, the best approach is to make the protocols simple and have the main CPU do the work.” Such a statement did not disparage other approaches. As pointed out by the Federal Court, “Tanenbaum merely expresses a preference and does not teach away from offloading processing from the CPU to a separate processor.”
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding of a motivation to combine Thia and Tanenbaum, explaining that “[a] reference that ‘merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into’ the claimed invention does not teach away.” (Meiresonne v. Google (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017)) The proposition makes clear that a general preference cannot support teaching away argument. A proper teach away argument requires evidence that shows the prior art references would lead away from the claimed invention.
Takeaway
- The PTAB’s obviousness findings should meet the APA’s requirements to support its decisions with adequate reasoning and evidence.
- A proper teach away argument requires evidence that shows the prior art references would lead away from the claimed invention.
A Non-Overlapping Prior Art Range May Still Render a Claimed Range Obvious
| April 12, 2018
In re Brandt
March 27, 2018
Before Lourie, Reyna and Taranto. Opinion by Reyna.
Summary:
Brandt’s patent application (U.S. Application No. 13/652,858) is to high density polyurethane or polyisocyanurate construction boards. The claims recite a coverboard having a density greater than 2.5 and less than 6 lbs/ft3. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner cited Griffin (US 2006/0096205), which discloses a coverboard having a density of “between 6 lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3 and preferably a density of at least 8 lbs/ft3” and stated that the claimed range would have been an obvious design choice. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) agreed with the Examiner stating that even though the prior art range does not overlap the claimed range, the difference in the ranges was “virtually negligible.” The CAFC agreed that the ranges are “so mathematically close that the examiner properly rejected the claims as prima facie obvious and affirmed the PTAB’s rejection of the claims.
A “Teaching Away” Argument Must be Commensurate in Scope with the Claims
| October 17, 2017
Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. v. SFC Co. Ltd.
September 15, 2017
Before Prost, O’Malley and Chen. Opinion by O’Malley.
Summary:
This case is an appeal from an inter partes review of Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd’s (“Idemitsu”) U.S. Patent No. 8,334,648 (“the ‘648 patent”) brought by SFC Co. Ltd. (“SFC”). Idemitsu argued on appeal that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) did not explain why a skilled artisan would have been led to use the claimed combination of compounds from the teachings of the prior art reference Arakane given that Arakane limits its combination of compounds to combinations satisfying a special relationship. The CAFC agreed with the PTAB in holding that the Arakane reference teaches compounds (including the claimed compounds among others) that when combined, produce a light emitting layer, regardless of the special relationship. The CAFC further held that “evidence concerning whether the prior art teaches away from a given invention must relate to and be commensurate in scope with the ultimate claims at issue.” In this case, the CAFC said that it is not particularly important that Arakane teaches that combinations of compounds not satisfying the special relationship result in poor performance because the claims at issue do not include limitations with respect to performance.
Details:
Idemitsu’s ‘648 patent is to an “Organic Electroluminescence Device and Organic Light Emitting Medium.” Claim 1 is provided below:
1. An electroluminescence device comprising a pair of electrodes and a layer of an organic light emitting medium disposed between the pair of electrodes, wherein the layer of an organic light emitting medium is present as a light emitting layer and comprises:
(A) an arylamine compound represented by formula V:
wherein X3 is a substituted or unsubstituted pyrene residue,
Ar5 and Ar6 each independently represent a substituted or unsubstituted monovalent aromatic group having 6 to 40 carbon atoms, and
p represents an integer of 1 to 4; and
(B) at least one compound selected from the group consisting of anthracene derivatives and spirofluorene derivatives, wherein
said anthracene derivatives are represented by formula I:
wherein A1 and A2 may be the same or different and each independently represent a substituted or unsubstituted monophenylanthryl group or a substituted or unsubstituted diphenylanthryl group, and L represents a single bond or a divalent bonding group, and by formula II:
wherein An represents a substituted or unsubstituted divalent anthracene residue, A3 and A4 may be the same or different and each independently represent a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 40 carbon atoms, at least one of A3 and A4 represents a substituted or unsubstituted monovalent condensed aromatic ring group or a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 10 or more carbon atoms; and
said spirofluorene derivatives are represented by formula III:
wherein Ar1 represents a substituted or unsubstituted spirofluorene residue, A5 to A8 each independently represent a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 40 carbon atoms;
provided that the organic light emitting medium does not include a styryl aryl compound.
SFC petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘648 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted review of the claims on the grounds of obviousness based on a single reference to Arakane (WO 02/052904). The Arakane reference is assigned to Idemitsu and teaches an organic electroluminescence device. Arakane discloses:
The present invention provides an organic electroluminescence device including a pair of electrodes and an organic light emitting medium layer interposed between the electrodes wherein the organic light emitting medium layer has a mixture layer containing (A) at least one hole transporting [“HT”] compound and (B) at least one electron transporting [“ET”] compound and the energy gap Eg1 of the [HT] compound and the energy gap Eg2 of the [ET] compound satisfy the relation Eg1<Eg2.
Among the HT compounds, Arakane discloses a compound corresponding to formula V of claim 1. And among ET compounds, Arakane discloses compounds corresponding to compounds of formulas I and II of claim 1, respectively.
The PTAB held the claims of the ‘648 patent to be obvious over Arakane. Specifically, the PTAB held that Arakane’s HT compound corresponds with the formula V compound of claim 1; that Arakane’s ET compounds correspond with compounds of formulas (I) and (II) of claim 1; and that Arakane teaches that a light emitting layer can be formed by combining an HT and ET compound. The PTAB stated that the claimed invention “is the combination of recited components in a light emitting layer” and that “Arakane’s disclosure would have informed an ordinary artisan that combining components (A) and (B) would produce a light emitting layer.” The PTAB further stated that the obviousness of the combination “does not depend on whether the resulting light emitting layer would satisfy Arakane’s energy gap relationship.”
Idemitsu argued on appeal that the PTAB made no finding with respect to the energy gap relationship taught in Arakane, i.e., that the energy gap of the HT compound must be less than the energy gap of the ET compound. The CAFC stated that the PTAB correctly found that Arakane suggests combinations of HT and ET compounds that produce a light emitting layer, regardless of their energy gap relation.
Idemitsu also argued that this was raised too late because it was not in SFC’s petition or in the PTAB’s institution decision. However, the CAFC stated that Idemitsu is the party that implicitly raised the argument by arguing that SFC failed to explain why a skilled artisan would have been led to use the combination of HT and ET compounds given that Arakane limits the combination of compounds to combinations satisfying the energy gap relationship. In its counterargument, SFC argued that Arakane does not teach away from the claimed combination despite the absence of demonstrating that the combination would possess the preferred energy gap relationship. The CAFC stated that SFC’s statements were “the by-product of one party necessarily getting the last word,” and thus the argument was not raised too late.
The CAFC also noted that Idemitsu provided no supporting evidence for its position that Arakane teaches away from non-energy gap HT/ET combinations, and that SFC was not required to rebut attorney argument with expert testimony.
The CAFC further stated that Idemitsu’s argument regarding “teaching away” is of questionable relevance. The CAFC explained that “evidence concerning whether the prior art teaches away from a given invention must relate to and be commensurate in scope with the ultimate claims at issue.” The CAFC also included the following passage from In re Zhang, 654 F. App’x 490 (Fed. Cir. 2016): “While a prior art reference may indicate that a particular combination is undesirable for its own purposes, the reference can nevertheless teach that combination if it remains suitable for the claimed invention.” The claims at issue do not include limitations with respect to performance characteristics. And Arakane teaches that the only drawback of not satisfying the energy gap relationship is poor performance. Thus, the CAFC concluded that it is of substantially reduced importance that the non-energy-gap HT/ET combinations result in poor performance.
Take Away
As a patent applicant or patent owner, when arguing that a reference teaches away from a claimed invention to demonstrate non-obviousness, you should try to explain why the reference teaches unsuitability of the claimed invention. Relying solely on a teaching of undesirability in the prior art may not be enough to demonstrate a teaching away from the claimed invention.
This case also emphasizes the importance of supporting arguments with expert declarations in inter partes reviews. Idemitsu did not provide evidence supporting a teaching away argument. Thus, SFC and the PTAB could rely solely on the text of the reference.
Not All Secondary Considerations are Probative of Nonobviousness
| July 23, 2014
Galderma Labs v. Tolmar, Inc.
December 11, 2013
Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PROST. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
SUMMARY
This Hatch-Waxman case is based on Tolmar’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to market a generic drug (Differin® Gel,0.3%), which is a topical medication containing 0.3% by weight adapalene approved for the treatment of acne.
Tags: commercial success > secondary considerations > teaching away > unexpected results
KSR Reigned In For A Preliminary Injunction
| January 18, 2012
Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v Cellzdirect, Inc. and Invitrogen Corp.
January 9, 2012
Panel: Rader, Gajarsa, and Prost. Opinion by Rader; Dissent by Gajarsa.
Summary:
While Rader’s majority opinion affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction despite defendant’s obviousness challenge, Gajarsa’s dissenting opinion asserts that the majority’s decision disregards the Supreme Court’s KSR flexible guidelines regarding the finding of obviousness in the mere repetition of well-known techniques to achieve a desired result, and in the application of “obvious to try.” Gajarsa’s dissent also notes that this is a preliminary injunction, and the standard is not whether defendant has shown obviousness by clear and convincing evidence, but rather, whether defendant has shown a “substantial question of invalidity” to defeat a preliminary injunction. Perhaps, the strongest position for the majority opinion is its consideration of the showing of a “teaching away” in the record, as well as deference given to the district court’s determinations of credibility of the parties’ expert witnesses.
Tags: common sense > injunction > KSR > obvious to try > obviousness > preliminary injunction > teaching away
