Takeaway: If a patent owner presents evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness, a petition asserting obviousness should address the evidence substantively.
In its Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims (1-10) of the ’522 Patent, and denied institution of inter partes review. The ’522 Patent is directed in part to polynucleotides encoding the extracellular region of an insoluble human TNF receptor (“TNF-R”).
Takeaway: A poster that is displayed may be considered a printed publication where the intended audience of the poster session necessarily includes interested persons of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the challenged claims.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that Petitioner had proven that claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious, but had not proven the unpatentability of claims 17 and 18. The Board also granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend and denied its Motion to Exclude Evidence. The ’550 patent “discloses using a ‘Mycobacterium smegmatis porin (Msp)’ to detect analytes in liquid media.” Continue reading
Takeaway: One’s expertise, even draped with a skilled-artisan veil, does not entitle a naked opinion to much weight.
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3 of the ’920 patent are unpatentable. Continue reading