- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2015-01442 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the asserted combinations did not disclose the claimed hand-held device.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Figure 18 illustrates use of the PCS device within the communications web of Snelling. Id. at 41:29–30. The PCS device “may be coupled to NCU 100 via an adapter 1905 that interfaces with the cellular phone 1800.” Id. at 41:30– 32. NCU 100 itself, however, is not described as being “hand-held.” Patent Owner highlights a number of factors supporting the allegation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not view NCU 100 as a device that is hand-held or even mobile in operation: its ability to be “rapidly installed in any location” (citing Ex. 1001, 54:30–32 (emphasis added)); the examples of situations in which NCU 100 could be used—trade show, construction site, emergency aid organization providing assistance after a disaster (id. at 55:4– 8); and power sources including “a dedicated battery, an electric power generator, automobile cigarette adapter, solar cells, any electro-mechanical converter” (id. at 55:13–16). Prelim. Resp. 31. Although the NCU can harness the functionality of a hand-held device to access a wireless network, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that Snelling does not identify NCU 100 as a hand-held device. Petitioner relies on certain sections of Snelling discussing the ability of NCU 100 to be made mobile, in that NCU 100 may be moved from location to location, but does not point to any evidence persuading us that NCU 100 is a hand-held device. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that NCU 100 itself is a hand-held device including the components and functionality of the hand-held device set forth in the challenged claims. Taking into account our construction of “hand-held device,” we are unpersuaded that a “hand-held device” is disclosed by the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner would prevail on its contention that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“appearance in the preamble renders it limiting. “A claim’s preamble may limit the claim when the claim drafter uses the preamble to define the subject matter of the claim.” August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett- Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination ‘resolved only on review of the entire[ ] . . . patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.’” Id. at 808 (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “Where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, the PTO and courts give effect to that usage.” Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (when limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention). Our consideration of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the preamble is limiting. The term “hand-held device” appears prominently in the specification. In the “Summary of the Invention” section, the specification states: “A hand-held device for providing communication between a wide area network and a wireless local area network is provided . . . .” Ex. 1001, 1:61–64 (emphasis added). This section also states: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hand-held wireless device is a cellular telephone . . . .” Ex. 1001, 4:1–2 (emphasis added). The specification uses the term “hand-held device” as the heading for Detailed Description Section II, which describes device 106 and terminals 107: “II. Hand-held Device/Terminal Hardware” in which “FIG. 2 illustrates embodiments of terminals 107 and device 106.” Id. at 6:36–38. Rather than glossing over the role of the hand-held device in the overall invention, other portions of the specification provide additional details about the hand-held nature of the claimed device. See, e.g., id. at Abstract (identifying a cellular telephone), 6:16–19 (identifying different embodiments of the present invention), 6:37–59 (discussing the hand-held device with reference to Fig. 2), 14:23–15:38 (discussing usage scenarios including a cellular telephone as the hand-held device). The term “hand-held device” appears prominently in the claims as well. The challenged claims all are directed to a device, rather than a method or a system; in each case, the device is a hand-held device. The term “handheld device” recites a structural limitation of the claim, in that the “hand-held” aspect of the device is a dimensional, physical restriction on the size of the device. The limitations in all of the claims rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, in that they are housed within a hand-held device, which limits the size and adaptations required of the remaining limitations in the claims. Every claim depending from claim 1 recites “[t]he hand-held device of claim 1.” Ex. 1001, 17:8–18:47. Thus, we determine the use of “hand-held device” in the preamble of the challenged claims is limiting, in that it denotes a structural limitation of the claimed device.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Having determined that the term “hand-held device” is limiting, we turn to the construction of the term. Petitioner urges that the term be construed “broadly enough to encompass a mobile device for enabling communication between one or more devices connected to one or more cellular networks and one or more devices connected to a wireless local area network.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner, although urging that no additional construction is needed, states the plain meaning of the term “hand-held device” is “a device that is hand-held, i.e., a device that that is designed to be held and operated in a person’s hand.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We adopt Patent Owner’s construction, namely, “a device that is designed to be held and operated in a person’s hand.”” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Figure 18 illustrates use of the PCS device within the communications web of Snelling. Id. at 41:29–30. The PCS device “may be coupled to NCU 100 via an adapter 1905 that interfaces with the cellular phone 1800.” Id. at 41:30– 32. NCU 100 itself, however, is not described as being “hand-held.” Patent Owner highlights a number of factors supporting the allegation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not view NCU 100 as a device that is hand-held or even mobile in operation: its ability to be “rapidly installed in any location” (citing Ex. 1001, 54:30–32 (emphasis added)); the examples of situations in which NCU 100 could be used—trade show, construction site, emergency aid organization providing assistance after a disaster (id. at 55:4– 8); and power sources including “a dedicated battery, an electric power generator, automobile cigarette adapter, solar cells, any electro-mechanical converter” (id. at 55:13–16). Prelim. Resp. 31. Although the NCU can harness the functionality of a hand-held device to access a wireless network, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that Snelling does not identify NCU 100 as a hand-held device. Petitioner relies on certain sections of Snelling discussing the ability of NCU 100 to be made mobile, in that NCU 100 may be moved from location to location, but does not point to any evidence persuading us that NCU 100 is a hand-held device. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that NCU 100 itself is a hand-held device including the components and functionality of the hand-held device set forth in the challenged claims. Taking into account our construction of “hand-held device,” we are unpersuaded that a “hand-held device” is disclosed by the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner would prevail on its contention that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Snelling and Router Plugins.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,295,532 - PTAB · Dec 29, 2015 · IPR2015-01499 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were obvious over Satou and Noguchi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“5. Summary Based on the record before us, SDC has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertion that claims 1–9 would have been obvious over the combination of Satou and Noguchi because SDC does not provide a sufficient rationale to combine the respective teachings of these asserted references. III. CONCLUSION Taking into account the arguments presented in Gold Charm’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that SDC would prevail in challenging claims 1–9 of the ’534 patent as unpatentable under § 103(a). IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“On the present record, we are not persuaded that SDC has articulated a sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi. With respect to SDC’s assertion that the teachings of Satou and Noguchi are capable of being combined because both of these references solve the same problem using essentially the same structure, this assertion, at best, indicates that Satou and Noguchi are analogous art to each other. Merely asserting that these prior art references are analogous art to each other, however, does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. With respect to SDC’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi, this assertion lacks a convincing rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Noguchi for guidance as to how these components disclosed in Satou should be re-configured in the manner required by independent claim 1. Based on this assertion, we understand SDC to argue that the components disclosed in Satou’s active matrix substrate account for all the features required by independent claim 1, but these components are not configured in the same manner required by this claim. We further understand SDC to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi in order to achieve the particular configuration of features required by independent claim 1. Without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We also are not persuaded by the supporting testimony of Mr. Credelle regarding SDC’s rationale to combine the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because it essentially repeats the arguments advanced by SDC in its Petition. Compare Pet. 38–40, with Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 76, 77. For instance, Mr. Credelle testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Satou and Noguchi because they solve the same problem using essentially the same structure. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:52– 56; Ex. 1004, 2:38–41). Similar to our explanation above, simply demonstrating that these prior art references are analogous art to each other does not suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to combine their respective teachings—more is required to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Mr. Credelle also testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented components of Satou’s active matrix substrate in accordance with the configurations taught by Noguchi. Ex. 1006 ¶ 76. Similar to our explanation above, without engaging in impermissible hindsight reconstruction, it is not clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the configurations taught by Noguchi, especially given that, according to SDC, Noguchi solves the same problem as Satou using essentially the same structure. See Grain Processing, 840 F.2d at 907.” slip op. at 17
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,211,534 - PTAB · Dec 28, 2015 · IPR2015-01479 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he use of the term ‘backlight’ rather than simply ‘light’ indicates that something is being illuminated from behind.” Id. at 28. Petitioner’s proposed constructions (Pet. 13–16) are unreasonably broad insofar as they do not account for the use of the term “backlight.” We also agree with Patent Owner (see id.) that it is clear in the context of the ’833 patent that the recited backlights are in a liquid crystal display apparatus. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (words used in a claim are not construed in a “lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings”); In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1976)). Petitioner, and its expert Dr. Silzars, recognize in their statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art that the relevant art here is “display technologies.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. Notably, however, despite Petitioner’s assertions and Dr. Silzars’ opinions that “[t]he alleged invention boils down to a method for minimizing the electrical noise generated when simultaneously driving multiple lights,” that the “‘liquid crystal display’ modifier” in the preambles of the challenged claims “merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention” (Pet. 20–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–59), and that “there is no structure that is specific to LCDs recited in the body of any of the claims,” neither Petitioner nor Dr. Silzars identifies any context in which backlights would be employed by those of ordinary skill in the art of display technologies, other than in an LCD. Accordingly, on this record and for purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “backlight” is “a lamp or set of lamps that illuminates a liquid crystal display from behind.” Because the claims already explicitly define the relationship between the “first backlight” and the “second backlight”—for example, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the second backlight is “driven simultaneously with said first backlight” and “ha[s] an oscillation wave whose phase is inverted with respect to an oscillation wave of the first backlight”—we discern no need to provide separate interpretations of “first backlight” and “second backlight.” We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to limit the “second backlight” to include “all remaining lamps of the . . . apparatus that are not in the first backlight.” Because independent claims 1 and 16 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” those claims do not exclude additional, unrecited elements and method steps, respectively. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03 (9th ed., Rev. 07.2015 Nov. 2015). 2. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, no other claim terms require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘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 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)
“B. Anticipation and Obviousness “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed[,] and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)
“A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter 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 having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“D. Remaining Contentions The above determination makes it unnecessary to resolve any other disputes, including Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner failed to list all of the real parties in interest. See Prelim. Resp. 4–14; Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Paper 9; Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioners’ Reply, Paper 10.” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,417,833 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01434 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,343 B2 (“the ’343 Patent”). 35 U.S.C. § 311. Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response, Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”), contending that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims. We have jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- BurdenOther
“map each claim element to a particular teaching of an asserted reference. In particular, Patent Owner notes that, rather than state the claim language in the Petition, Petitioner provides Exhibit 1013, which breaks the claims into specific phrases and assigns each phrase a designation, e.g., 1.A, 1.B. Prelim. Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach improperly incorporates the claims by reference and that no relief can be granted unless the arguments in the Petition itself, of which the claims are an essential part, support granting the relief. Id. at 33. We agree that Petitioner’s use of an Exhibit to specify the claim elements and its failure to include the claim language anywhere in the Petition is an improper incorporation by reference. Nevertheless, although the claim language is not repeated in the Petition, the Petition contains a paragraph for most, if not all the claim element designations. Therefore, we do not dismiss the Petition on this basis alone.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“specification, neither “data parcel” nor “update data parcel” is defined explicitly in the ’343 Patent. The ’343 Patent refers to “source image data” being processed to obtain a series of K1-N derivative images of progressively lower image resolution. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–6. The ’343 Patent also discloses the source image data corresponding to the series image K0 being subdivided into a regular array such that each resulting “image parcel” of the array has, for example, 64 by 64 pixel resolution, where the “image data” has a color or bit per pixel depth of 16 bits, which represents a “data parcel” size of 8 K bytes. Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 6–11. Thus, an image parcel is an element of a source image array that defines a source image and a data parcel is data that corresponds to an image parcel. In view of this disclosure, we construe “data parcel” to mean data that corresponds to an element of a source image array. We agree that no other specific claim construction is required and we accord the claim terms their ordinary meaning as used in the ’343 Patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artReference not prior artMixed
“REFERENCES ARGUED AS NOT APPLICABLE PRIOR ART Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Potmesil (Ex. 1002) and Lindstrom (Ex. 1004) constitute applicable prior art references. Prelim. Resp. 3–12. We addressed the same arguments as those advanced by Patent Owner in this proceeding in our Decision to Institute in related proceeding Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPP2015-01432, slip op. at 10–14 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2015)(Decision to Institute)3 and Microsoft corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, Case IPR2015-01435, slip op. at 8–16 (PTAB Dec. XX, 2015)4. We arrive at the same result in this proceeding and find that, although Petitioner has established that Potmesil is applicable as prior art, Petitioner has not established Lindstrom is prior art that may be applied in Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,908,343 - Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 23, 2015 · IPR2015-01435 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any claim unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Whether a reference qualifies as a “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). A reference is considered “publicly accessible” upon a satisfactory showing that the document has been “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence[] can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Often, the determination of public accessibility turns on whether a reference is indexed and catalogued in a meaningful way. For example, an uncatalogued and unshelved thesis in a university library, notwithstanding its accessibility to a graduate committee, was not sufficiently accessible to the public to constitute a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the “thesis could have been located in the university library only by one having been informed of its existence by the faculty committee, and not by means of the customary research aids available in the library.” In re Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357, 1361–62 (CCPA 1978). In contrast, a dissertation shelved in the stacks and indexed in the catalog at a university library was found to be a printed publication. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, indexing and cataloging must be prepared in a “meaningful” way, e.g., in relationship to the subject matter of the references, to allow an interested researcher exercising reasonable diligence to locate the prior art. See Cronyn, 890 F.2d at 1161.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 47–52; col. 13, ll. 55–60; col. 14, ll. 57–62. For claim 1, Petitioner identifies this limitation as elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J.8 Ex. 1012, 1. Petitioner treats these elements separately as if they are three distinct limitations, each describing or capturing a discrete feature or concept. See Pet. 44–45. As discussed below, Petitioner’s analysis is fundamentally flawed because the common limitation set forth above must be considered as a whole. The reason is that the limitation captures a single concept described in the Specification—a concept that can be understood only when the limitation is considered as a whole. Petitioner’s omission of the actual claim language in its analysis and using the labels (e.g., claim elements 1.H, 1.I, or 1.J) in place of the claim language obscures the problem underlying Petitioner’s approach and reinforces the erroneous impression that the Petitioner-identified elements are separate and distinct limitations.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not explain adequately the reasons to combine the references to teach elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J. An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner must also show that there was a reason to combine those elements to achieve the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). First, we note that not all combinations elements 1.H and 1.I satisfy element 1.J, “such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size.” For example, if the resolution increased by a factor of two while the array subdivision decreased by a factor of two from one image to the next in the series of images, the byte size of the image parcels would increase by a factor of four. In another example, reducing the resolution by a factor of four while reducing the array subdivision by a factor of eight would increase the byte size of the image parcels by a factor of two. In both examples, elements 1.H and 1.I would be satisfied but not element 1.J because each image parcel of the two successive images would not be of a fixed size as required by the claim. Hence, in order to show that the combination of Rutledge, Ligtenberg, and Cooper teaches the claimed feature of elements 1.H, 1.I, and 1.J, Petitioner must show how a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine the references to teach varying the resolution and array subdivision in a specific way, e.g., both decreasing by a factor of four, “such that each image parcel [is] of a fixed byte size.”” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“testifies that “[s]ince each tile in a layer has the same size (‘fTileSize’) . . . it would be obvious that each image parcel could have the same fixed byte size.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 218. However, the cited portion in column 13 of Ligtenberg appears to be a listing of C language source code, which shows that “fTileSize” is a variable for storing 16-bit integer values. See Ex. 1005, col. 13, ll. 30–37 (“UInt16 fTileSize;”). Dr. Michalson does not cite any disclosure in Ligtenberg that requires this value to remain constant for all layers of resolution. Instead, Dr. Michalson asserts that “it would be obvious that each image parcel could have the same fixed byte size” because “using a fixed size . . . could improve predictability of the system” by making “the caching process more straightforward.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 218 (emphases added). However, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Dr. Michalson justifies his “could have” reasoning by making an analogy to stacking cubic boxes of the same size in a room. Ex. 1009 ¶ 218. We are not persuaded by Dr. Michalson’s testimony because it is conclusory and provides insufficient explanation why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Ligtenberg to teach the claimed feature, i.e., each image parcel having the same byte size for any resolution layer or across all resolution layers. The lack of adequate reasoning in Dr. Michalson’s testimony indicates that Dr. Michalson relies on impermissible hindsight. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Where, as here, the necessary reasoning is absent, we cannot simply assume that ‘an ordinary artisan would be awakened to modify prior art in such a way as to lead to an obviousness rejection.’ It is in such circumstances, moreover, that it is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias.” (citation omitted)); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he expert’s testimony on obviousness was essentially a conclusory statement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, based on the ‘modular’ nature of the claimed components, how to combine any of a number of references to achieve the claimed inventions. This is not sufficient and is fraught with hindsight bias.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated Ligtenberg teaches element 1.J, “such that each image parcel being of a fixed byte size,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 22
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,924,506 - TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01450 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 were unpatentable under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 5, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34–36 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment members. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 46–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶¶ 56, 59). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach would advantageously seal the components of the camera in Schofield to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 47–48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Schofield teaches that the imaging sensor module disclosed therein already is protected from such intrusions. Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4. Further, the housing in Klappenbach is not just a protective housing for sensor components, but, rather, a structure designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner also argues that the fastening device in Klappenbach can be preinstalled. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1113 ¶ 58). Petitioner does not explain, though, why that would have made it obvious to use the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach with the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield. Moreover, Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach is, or can be, configured to accommodate a forward facing camera generally or the vehicle headlight dimming control in Figure 1 of Schofield particularly. Pet. 45–48. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited teachings of Blank, Schofield, and Klappenbach in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,692,659 - TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01433 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 70–76 obvious over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to the patentability of claims 70–76 of the ’659 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment members. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“of Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, and Carter teaches or suggests all the limitations of the challenged claims. Independent claim 70 recites “a structure configured for mounting to said plurality of attachment members . . . wherein said structure is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera.” Ex. 1002, col. 52, ll. 45–53. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach corresponds to the claimed structure configured to accommodate a forward facing camera, and that the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield includes the claimed forward facing camera. Pet. 37–41. The housing in Klappenbach is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach also is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. Pet. 37–41. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, Carter, and optionally Batavia would have taught or suggested the limitation “said structure is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera” to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 39–41 (citing Ex. 1813 ¶ 56). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach would advantageously seal the components of the camera in Schofield to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1813 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Schofield teaches that the imaging sensor module disclosed therein already is protected from such intrusions. Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4. Further, the housing in Klappenbach is not just a protective housing for sensor components, but, rather, a structure designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner also argues that the fastening device in Klappenbach can be preinstalled. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1813 ¶ 58). Petitioner does not explain, though, why that would have made it obvious to use the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach with the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield. Moreover, Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach is, or can be, configured to accommodate a forward facing camera generally or the vehicle headlight dimming control in Figure 1 of Schofield particularly. Pet. 39–41. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited teachings of Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, Carter, and optionally Batavia in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,692,659 - TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01426 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 37, 41, 43, and 45–48 were unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 37, 41, 43, and 45–48 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 37, 41, 43, and 45–48 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“written description of an attachment member attached to a vehicle windshield and local to a mirror mounting button, as recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 12–15 (citing Ex. 1213 ¶¶ 31–33, 40, 44–46). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The ’287 patent discloses the” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We also are not persuaded, on this record, that it would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1213 ¶ 56). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach would advantageously seal the components of the camera in Schofield to prevent intrusion of elements from the environment. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1213 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Schofield teaches that the imaging sensor module disclosed therein already is protected from such intrusions. Ex. 1007, col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 4. Further, the housing in Klappenbach is not just a protective housing for sensor components, but, rather, a structure designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner also argues that the fastening device in Klappenbach can be preinstalled. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1213 ¶ 58). Petitioner does not explain, though, why that would have made it obvious to use the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach with the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield. Moreover, Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach is, or can be, configured to accommodate a forward facing camera generally or the vehicle headlight dimming control in Figure 1 of Schofield particularly. Pet. 45–49. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited teachings of Blank, Schofield, and Klappenbach in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,692,659 - TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01428 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because TRW did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 38, 39, 42, 48, and 49 obvious over either asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“obvious over the ’287 patent. Pet. 2. The ’659 patent is a continuation of the ’287 patent. Id. at 19; Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 7–23. Petitioner argues that the ’287 patent is prior art to the ’659 patent because the ’287 patent does not satisfy the written description requirement with respect to the challenged claims of the ’659 patent. Pet. 13–18. Patent Owner argues that the ’287 patent satisfies the written description requirement, and, thus, is not prior art with respect to the challenged claims of the ’659 patent. Prelim. Resp. 5–19. We have reviewed the parties’ assertions and supporting evidence, and, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the ’287 patent is prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment member. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“obvious to combine the cited teachings of Schofield and Klappenbach. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to use the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach because the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield provides more functionality. Id. at 44–46 (citing Ex. 1413 ¶¶ 56, 59). Petitioner’s argument explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would select the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield rather than the rain sensor in Klappenbach, but does not explain why it would have been obvious to mount the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield using the fastening device and housing in Klappenbach.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,692,659 - TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 21, 2015 · IPR2015-01436 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 78–80 and 83–89 were unpatentable under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 78–80 and 83–89 of U.S. Patent No. 8,692,659 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’659 patent”). Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 78–80 and 83–89 of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted. slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“written description of an attachment member attached to a vehicle windshield and local to a mirror mounting button, as recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 10–13 (citing Ex. 1913 ¶¶ 31–33, 40, 44–46). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The ’287 patent discloses the following: As best understood from FIG. 16B, extension 8513 of header console 8512 extends downwardly behind the upper portion of windshield W (such portion of windshield W which typically includes a shadeband element as known in the art) and includes a forked portion 8513a, such as an inverted V-shaped or U-shaped portion, which straddles a mirror mounting button 8536 that is mounted to windshield W. Optionally, the downwardly extending portion of header/header console 8512 may be mounted to the inner surface of windshield W, such as by an adhesive or may be releasably, mechanically attached such as by being received by and/or supported by one or more attaching members adhered to the inner surface of the windshield, such as by attachment members, including rails, channels, or the like. Ex. 1012, col. 28, ll. 15–28 (emphasis added). The above disclosure in the ’287 patent describes a console that straddles (and thus is local to) a mirror mounting button and is mounted to a vehicle windshield using attachment members, such as rails or channels. Id. As such, the above disclosure in the ’287 patent is sufficient to show that the inventors had possession of the claimed attachment member. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“camera.” Ex. 1002, col. 53, l. 63–col. 54, l. 2. Petitioner argues that the housing in Klappenbach corresponds to the claimed structure configured to accommodate a forward facing camera, and that the vehicle headlight dimming control in Schofield includes the claimed forward facing camera. Pet. 39–42. The housing in Klappenbach is designed specifically to accommodate transmitter 10 and receiver 11, as shown in Figure 1. Ex. 1010, col. 3, ll. 46–67, Fig. 1. Petitioner does not provide a specific explanation or identify specific evidence showing that the housing in Figures 1 and 2 of Klappenbach also is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera. Pet. 39–42. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Blank, Schofield, Klappenbach, and Carter would have taught or suggested the limitation “said structure is configured to accommodate a forward facing camera” to one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,692,659
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.