- LG Electronics Inc. / LG Electronics USA, Inc. v. Image Processing Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00104 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claim 1, finding the petition presented the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously considered by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (The Director delegated her authority to determine whether trial should be instituted to the Board.). Section 325(d) of Title 35 of the United States Code states, in relevant part: “In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We use a two-part framework for evaluating arguments under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“applied the construction of “the [at least two] calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter” (the “common parameter” limitation) as meaning “the histogram calculation units being configured to each form a histogram representative of at least one common parameter.” Ex. 1005 (IPR 336 Final Written Decision), 12– 14; see Ex. 1006 (IPR 1189 Decision Denying Institution), 9; Ex. 1007 (Reexam 056 Decision finding claim 1 patentable), 8.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,959,293 - Alarm.Com, Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00728 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art had been presented during prosecution and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”), the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“After considering the Petition and associated evidence, we exercise” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the record at this stage, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). Accordingly, for purposes of this decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose constructions for any claim terms. See Pet. 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,349,262 - Microsoft Corporation v. Throughputer, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00757 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–24 under § 325(d), finding the asserted art substantially the same as art considered during prosecution and no material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“considered by the Examiner during prosecution. As noted above, the Petition relies primarily on Nollet, in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, for teaching each limitation in the independent challenged claims. See Pet. 38–60, 67–72. Although the Petition cites additional teachings in Tuan, Miller, and Redaelli for certain limitations (see id.), Petitioner has not specifically identified any limitations for which the cited disclosure in Tuan, Miller, or Redaelli is not cumulative to that in Nollet. Rather, Petitioner asserts, for example, that “Nollet and Tuan are directed to similar systems that assign reconfigurable tiles of a hardware device to tasks of an application” (id. at 32), and that “Nollet and Miller are both directed to efficient resource sharing among applications, including with the use of reconfigurable devices, such as FPGAs” (id. at 33). Moreover, Petitioner reasons that combining the teachings of Tuan and Miller with those of Nollet “merely involves incorporating known features that are explicitly disclosed in Tuan and/or Miller and would have been understood by [one of ordinary skill in the art] as likely present but not explicitly disclosed by Nollet.” Id. at 34. Accordingly, we understand the Petition to be applying Tuan and Miller mainly as alternatives to Nollet, or as evidence of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner highlights the Petition’s citation to Redaelli for claim element [1.10], quoted above in § I.E, and argues that the Office did not find this limitation to be present in the prior art (Pet. 5), Petitioner relies primarily on Nollet for element [1.10] (see id. at 58–59). Specifically, the Petition asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Nollet as minimizing reconfiguration of a processing unit assigned to a task that has a preference for that processing unit when the processing unit is already executing the task and has not yet completed it,” and only relies on Redaelli “[a]lternatively, with respect to [the obviousness ground based on Nollet, Tuan, Miller, and Redaelli].” Id. at 59. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[l]ike Nollet, Redaelli is directed to partially and dynamically reconfigurable FPGAs,” and reasons that adding the teachings of Redaelli to the combined teachings of Nollet, Tuan, and Miller “merely involves incorporating known features that are explicitly disclosed by Redaelli and would have been understood by [one of ordinary skill in the art] as likely present, but not explicitly disclosed by Nollet.” Id. at 37. Therefore, as with Tuan and Miller, Petitioner appears to apply Redaelli as an alternative to Nollet, or as evidence of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, Petitioner fails to distinguish the relied upon disclosure in Redaelli from Creamer or Young, both of which were cited and substantively discussed by the Examiner in the Notice of Allowance. See Ex. 1002, 87– 88.8 Based on the current record, we determine that Tuan, Miller, and Redaelli are essentially cumulative to Nollet or other prior art cited by the Examiner, and conclude that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. b) Whether the Same or Substantially the Same Arguments Previously Were” slip op. at 18
Discretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,963,306 - ADT LLC v. Vivint, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2022 · IPR2022-00612 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art had been considered and no material examiner error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Because (1) Saylor ’265 was made of record by the examiner and contains essentially the same disclosure as Saylor, (2) we find that the disclosures of Gregory relied upon by Petitioner are duplicative of Kellen and Thomson evaluated and distinguished during examination, and (3) Petitioner extensively relies on Saylor and Gregory in each of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, we determine that the Petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art that was previously presented to” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“the time of the alleged invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering (or equivalent experience), and at least two years of professional experience in remote monitoring and control systems, Internet of Things (‘IoT’), home security systems, building automation systems, machine-to-machine (‘M2M’) communications, or other similarly relevant industry experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not provide its own assessment regarding the level of skill in the art, or otherwise dispute Petitioner’s assertion. See Prelim. Resp. Based on our review of the record at this stage, we find that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes specific claim constructions for any terms. Pet. 5; see Prelim. Resp. On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,349,262 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2022 · IPR2021-01520 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 9-11, 13, 18, and 19 under § 325(d), finding the same art had been evaluated and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“If “either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied,” we must then determine “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. “An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. at 8 n.9.” slip op. at 16
- Other 314aNot reached
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under § 314(a) or § 325(d) to deny institution. See Prelim. Resp. 13–43; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–8; 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 325(d). Petitioner argues that we should decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution. See Pet. 8–12; Prelim. Reply 1–10. For the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution. Because we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution, we do not reach discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 15
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,686,193 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01270 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 2–5, 11–14, 22, 23, and 26–28 under § 325(d) because substantially the same prior art was previously presented and material Office error was not shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“applicant, such as on an [IDS].” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. Because it was submitted in an IDS during prosecution of the ’380 patent, Sourcefire qualifies as art that was “previously presented” to the Office.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“Bionics framework, and based on the particular circumstances here, we conclude that the same or substantially the same prior art as in the Petition was presented previously to the Office, and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we determine that discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is appropriate. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 18
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,735,380 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01156 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1, 6–10, 15–21, 24, 25, 29, and 30, because the same prior art was previously presented and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“presented to the Office. Section 325(d) states, in relevant part, “[in] determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses the following two-part framework in determining whether to exercise discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,735,380 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01155 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–20 under § 325(d), finding the asserted art and arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Examiner during prosecution of the ’343 patent and that Mantripragada is cumulative to Buck, which was considered during prosecution of the ’343 patent. We further find that Patent Owner’s argument during prosecution that the packet transformation function is configured “to prevent an exfiltration operation” resulted in allowance of the claims of the ’343 patent, which overlaps with the argument that Patent Owner makes in this case against Petitioner’s challenges. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. Petitioner has not shown that the two-stage filtering process was a basis for the Examiner’s allowance of the claims of the ’343 patent over the cited prior art. We, therefore, find that the same or substantially the same prior art, and the same or substantially the same arguments, previously were presented to the Office under the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Petitioner’s declarant testifies regarding the prosecution history of the ’343 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–90. He concludes that “the ’343 Patent claims were apparently allowed because the Examiner concluded that the prior art of record failed to disclose a two-stage packet filtering process,” mirroring Petitioner’s argument. Id. ¶ 90. Petitioner’s declarant does not indicate how the facts support this conclusion. As mentioned, Patent Owner’s argument during prosecution leading to allowance was that the ’343 patent’s claims recite applying the packet transformation function configured to prevent an exfiltration operation. Ex. 1002, 1614–1615, 1639. Petitioner’s declarant does not explain sufficiently where in the prosecution history Patent Owner argued that a two-stage packet filtering process distinguished the ’343 patent’s claims over the prior art, or where the Examiner allowed the claims because of two-stage packet filtering. Accordingly, lacking evidentiary support, the declarant’s testimony is entitled to little or no weight on this point. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Thus, we see no additional evidence or facts in the Petition that warrant reconsideration of the prior art. Therefore, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 18
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 1, 2019 · IPR2018-00686 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Nikon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–5, 7–10, 16, 24, and 30–33 based on § 325(d) and the priority-date analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 1 The Petition, in an apparent typographic error, omits claim 5 from its listing of challenged claims on page 1. identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of Ground 1 based on our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 17. Specifically, we determined that the Kaifu reference relied on by Petitioner was considered during prosecution. Id. Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments regarding why its contentions as to Kaifu were not considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“written description. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal brackets omitted) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, the specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed, at the time of filing, the subject matter that he or she has claimed. Id. “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Id. at 1351, 1355. Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed, not to that which is obvious. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that because the open ended term “comprising” was used in the original claim reciting “a” signal, the recitation of “a” signal and “one or more” signals would have the same scope. An indefinite article, such as “a,” in patent parlance encompasses “one or more” when used, as here, in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” Id. Thus, the claim as amended, which removes the open ended preface “comprising” and changes the modifier of “select signals” from “a” to “one or more,” does not change the scope of the claim in that respect. It merely is a different phrasing. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, any description of a system with one signal would necessarily support a claim to one or more signals. Inst. Dec. 28. Additionally, the claim, as amended, does not suggest there is choice between alternatives that would meet this claim. For example, the claim does not require a choice between a first type of signal and a second type of signal. The claim recites “one” signal, which can be optionally accompanied (“or”) by “more” signals.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,728,574 - Apple Inc. v. Immersion CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00896 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–7 and 23–29, rejecting the Rosenberg grounds under §325(d) and declining institution under §314(a) due to the repeated, evolving challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Section 325(d) provides, in pertinent part In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter . . . the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphases added). It is undisputed that Rosenberg ’373 and Rosenberg ’846 asserted by Petitioner in this case are the same prior art references previously presented by Petitioner in IPR2016-01372. As discussed above, Petitioner challenges the same claims on the same grounds which were previously considered and denied in IPR2016-01372. See 1372 Dec. on Inst. 41–45.” slip op. at 8
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“(a) whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; (b) whether the petitioner knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the later petition when it filed its earlier petition; (c) whether at the time of filing of the later petition, the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the earlier petition; (d) the length of time that elapsed between when the petitioner had the patent owner’s or Board’s analysis on the earlier petition and when petitioner filed the later petition; and (e) whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation why we should permit another attack on the same claims of the same patent.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,659,571
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.