- Google LLC v. Cellular South, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00877 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–11 because the Zhao-Kouzani combination did not sufficiently show a fractal representation based on landmarks.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’853 patent is unpatentable, and we do not institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“generally known in the art, and that this is acknowledged by the ’853 patent. Pet. 40–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:40–44). Petitioner asserts that Kouzani touts the benefits of fractal models and that it would have been obvious to use Kouzani’s fractal model as the object model in Zhou. Pet 44 (asserting that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have therefore been motivated to implement Kouzani’s techniques in Zhao’s system”); see also id. 42–45. (entire argument). Patent Owner argues that Kouzani’s fractals would not result in the claimed limitation. Prelim. Resp. 21–23. In particular, Patent Owner points out that Kouzani’s fractals use a block-based fractal system, which do not include “a representation of the object based on landmarks associated with the object” as required by claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. Even if Kouzani teaches fractals, claim 1 is not broadly claiming any fractal, but rather one that is “based on landmarks” (e.g., eyes, nose, etc.). See Ex. 1001, 13:53–57. The block-based system of Kouzani is based on abstract, repeated patterns of pixels, without regard to what the pixels represent. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8 (describing a “search . . . through the domain pool to find a domain block whose contractive transformation best approximates the range block” and then storing all of the transformations that, together, “represent the compressed image of a person’s face”), Fig. 4 (showing example blocks). This is in contrast to looking for particular landmarks in the image. Thus, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Kouzani’s fractal is based on landmarks. In Petitioner’s ground, Petitioner asserts that Zhao already teaches the claimed landmarks (Pet. 39, citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58, 65), but Petitioner’s ground replaces or modifies the object model of Zhao with the fractals of Kouzani, which are not based on landmarks. Petitioner does not explain how Zhao’s modified model, now using a block-based fractal system, would still have the landmarks of Zhao’s original model. Even if it were obvious to include fractals, we are persuaded that the fractals included by Kouzani are not based on landmarks. Alternatively, if Petitioner is asserting merely to use fractals in Zhao’s models, then Petitioner has not sufficiently accounted for the particular fractals claimed and explained persuasively how merely using fractals in Zhao would lead to the claimed subject matter, i.e., fractals based on landmarks. In either event, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the proposed combination satisfies the “fractal includes a representation of the object based on landmarks” limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13 (quoting in Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this proceeding. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,126,853 - PTAB · Aug 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00479 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were obvious over Erskine, Scherzer, or Scherzer and Gillett.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“III. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’634 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’634 patent (July 2018), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a similar major with at least two years of experience in the field; or a master’s degree with specialization in the field,” where “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Petitioner further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge of “[d]esigning and using systems that include endpoint devices (e.g., client devices) and servers for establishing network connections and data transfer,” “[r]ecognizing and applying the client-server architecture,” and “[u]sing and applying concepts from known telecommunication and networking frameworks, protocols and standards, including TCP/IP, IEEE 802.11, VoIP, cellular systems and other known frameworks and standards.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 14). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’634 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’634 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–29 (describing in the “Background” section of the ’634 patent a “network connection between two endpoints” and known methods of reaching “full effective bandwidth capacity” in a network).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner notes that it proposed a construction for the claim term “geographical area” in the district court case, but states that it “do[es] not believe proposing a construction for the term is necessary in this proceeding because the relied upon teachings of the prior art references are consistent with examples of ‘geographical area’ included in the ’634 patent [S]pecification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board need not engage in express claim construction at this stage of the proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 5. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Erskine teaches or suggests the second requirement of limitation [1c], i.e., “initiating the next network connection . . . with a transmission bandwidth based on the parameter values for the past network connection.” Petitioner’s theory is that (1) the QoS parameters in Erskine are for a “past” connection from one zone to another, (2) the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is “based on” the QoS parameters, and (3) a new call only proceeds if the transmission bandwidth needed for the call added to the current bandwidth being used over the interzone link is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, so Erskine therefore teaches a call with a transmission bandwidth determined “based on” the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth (which in turn is determined “based on” the QoS parameters). See Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60 (similar testimony from Dr. Crovella). As Patent Owner points out, however, Erskine only makes “a binary, accept/reject decision as to whether to allow a new call to proceed based on a comparison between the bandwidth needed for the call and a predetermined ‘sliding maximum interzone bandwidth value.’” See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Specifically, the additional bandwidth that would be needed for the call is added to the current bandwidth being used on the interzone link; if the sum of those values is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth for the link, the call “proceeds”; otherwise, it is “blocked.” Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 36–40, col. 6, l. 55–col. 7, l. 10, col. 8, ll. 36–43, col. 9, ll. 9–26, col. 10, ll. 23–25 (the sum is compared to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth “to determine whether enough bandwidth is available to proceed with the new call”), Fig. 3 (steps 308, 310, and 312). Erskine repeatedly refers to the bandwidth for the new call as the amount of bandwidth that is “necessary” or “required” to handle the call. See, e.g., id. at col. 1, ll. 43–57 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”), col. 6, ll. 61–64 (“the additional bandwidth required (of the new call)”), col. 8, ll. 36–40 (“the bandwidth necessary for the new call”), col. 9, ll. 16–21 (“the anticipated additional bandwidth necessary for the new call”), 54–56 (“the bandwidth amount the new call will utilize (if connected)”), col. 10, ll. 21–23 (same), 41–43 (same), col. 12, ll. 1–2 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”). It is that value—determined prior to the addition and comparison to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth—that will be used for the new call if it is allowed to “proceed[].” Id. at col. 6, ll. 64–67 (if the sum is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, the call “proceeds” and “the QoS table is updated with the additional bandwidth used by that call”). Erskine does not describe the transmission bandwidth for the new call as being based on any parameter values for a past network connection, but rather as “whatever bandwidth the system determined is necessary for the additional call.” See Prelim. Resp. 8–9. In other words, the transmission bandwidth needed for a new call is predetermined and independent of whatever the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is currently. See id.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,944,634 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00245 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 11, 13, and 15–17 would have been obvious over Costa or Costa and Oh.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Based upon our review of the present record, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that none of the claims require express construction and the claims should receive their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 23. Patent Owner argues that no claim construction is necessary for the institution determination, and that the Petition “still fails if the claim term ‘on’ receives its plain and ordinary meaning -- e.g., physically in contact with or directly on top of with intervening objects therebetween.” Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 66). Although Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has construed “on” as including indirectly on; i.e., where there is no physical contact, the Petition addressed now-disclaimed claim 18, and the Petition does not advance any construction for the remaining claims. See id. at 16–17 (citing Pet. 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 258). Consequently, we determine that no construction is required to resolve the issues for institution.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“we consider the level of ordinary skill at the time of filing. 35 U.S.C. § 103; see also Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (discussing pre- AIA obviousness). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2–3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) monolithic 3D structures and NAND memory devices, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The earliest claimed priority date for the ’241 patent is after the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment. See Ex. 1001, (63). Thus, we refer to the AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. 2 Costa, US 2018/001282771 (filed Feb. 28, 2017, published June 28, 2018) (Ex. 1005, “Costa”). 3 Oh, US 2017/0154892 A1 (filed June 10, 2016, published June 1, 2017) (Ex. 1006, “Oh”). some of the professional experience). Pet. 23–24. Petitioner also asserts that a POSITA “would have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about 3D NAND’s structure, how it is manufactured, and its component parts.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not take a position on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 11; see also Ex. 2006 ¶ 34 (applying Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA to the opinions set forth in the declaration but reserving the right to opine to an alternative level of a POSITA). At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA as it appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art that is reflected by the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to sufficiently show that Costa teaches a “second stacked layer disposed on the third channel structure” as required by apparatus claim element [11.E]. The Petition asserts that Costa’s second alternating stack 232, 242 is formed “on the top surface of joint-level material layers.” Pet. 64. However, Costa refers to the term “joint-level material layers” as representing layers 175–177, not the asserted third channel structure 173. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 166, 178, 184–85; see Ex. 2006 ¶ 77. Thus, under Petitioner’s characterization, which is consistent with Costa, Costa’s second alternating stack is not formed on the third channel structure, but instead, “on the top surface of the joint level material layers” that surround the third channel structure. Because Petitioner has not explained how a second alternating stack on the surface of the joint material layers teaches a second alternating stack disposed on the third channel structure, Petitioner has not met its obviousness burden for limitation [11.E].” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,482,532 - Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00173 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–13 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’333 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’333 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We adopt the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’333 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The Petition does assert an obviousness theory within the analysis of the “control device” limitation [1(b)]. Pet. 25–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85– 109). The Petition asserts that a “POSITA would have been motivated to implement McGregor’s device pursuant to Palmer such that the security code would be automatically transmitted when the device detects the receive the security code.” Pet. 28; see also id. at 31 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Palmer’s (1) RF field detection and handshake processes and (2) Palmer’s transceiver hardware in McGregor’s device.”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105). We find the Petition’s obviousness theory to be inherently inconsistent and non-specific with regard to the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1(e)].” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,628,333 - SML Intelligent Inventory Solutions LLC / SML (USA) Inc. v. Adasa Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2025 · IPR2025-00125 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Petitioner adopts the following definition of a person of ordinarily skill in the art (hereafter, sometimes “POSITA”) of the ’967 patent proposed by Patent Owner in the Avery Dennison litigation: [A]t least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering, or a related discipline, and at least five years of experience which would consist of, A, designing, developing, evaluating and/or using RFID or other AIDC [automatic identification and data capture] technologies in inventory management, unique object identification, and/or security; or B, studying and conducting research related to RFID technologies and using RFID and other AIDC technologies in inventory management, unique object identification, and/or security. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1030, 707:3–13). Patent Owner does not offer a definition of an ordinarily skilled artisan of the ’967 patent at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the information presented, we find that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references and the problems addressed in the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 17
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes the following claim constructions: “an allocated block of serial numbers” as “a pre-authorized range of binary serial numbers” and “uniquely corresponding” as the “term’s plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning” in the Avery Dennison litigation. Pet. 8–12. As to the remaining claim terms, Petitioner applies the district court’s constructions in the Avery Dennison litigation. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1028). Patent Owner applies the following constructions that were entered during in the Avery Dennison litigation: “object class information space” as “data field within the memory of the RFID integrated circuit chip for information identifying the class of an object, such as a company prefix, item reference code, partition value, and/or filter value,” “unique serial number space” as “data field within the memory of the RFID integrated circuit for information identifying a unique serial number,” “being assigned a limited number of most significant bits” as “includes a limited, predefined sequence at the leading end,” “remaining bits of lesser significance” as “the remaining lower order bits at the trailing end,” “is encoded with one serial number instance” as “has stored within it one serial number instance,” “an allocated block of serial numbers” as “a pre-authorized range of serial numbers,” and “uniquely corresponding” as its plain and ordinary meaning. Prelim. Resp. 32. For purposes of resolving whether to institute trial, we adopt and apply the interpretations stated in the district court’s claim construction order and applied by the Federal Circuit on appeal, Ex. 1028.11 See 55 F.4th 900, 908–909, 912–913 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing the district court’s claim construction order).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“IBM200 and Kuhno would have made it obvious for a POSITA to commission RFID tags with unique serial numbers partitioned into MSBs and bits of lesser significance. See Pet. 34–39; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 167–176. However, on this record, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the POSITA, having read IBM200 and Kuhno, would have been led to create a serial number space in which the limited number of “most significant bits” uniquely corresponds to those bits assigned to an allocated block of serial numbers, as recited in limitation [f].” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,798,967 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00035 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Micron did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 8–13, or 15 were obvious over either asserted reference combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of challenged claims 1–5, 8–13, and 15 of the ’604 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’604 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree that Petitioner has not shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the critical time would have been motivated to replace the wordlines in the staircase region with dielectric material if the result is that one of the memory cell arrays becomes unavailable. Petitioner relies upon two usable arrays for its combination, emphasizing Thimmegowda as desirably enabling “a single conductive contact (e.g., 334a) to bidirectionally drive memory cells in the memory arrays on either side of the bridge”; i.e., both the left and right memory cell blocks. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81– 83; Ex. 1005, 9:49–51; 7:61–64), 41 (stating that in the combination, “there Similarly, Thimmegowda emphasizes that the purpose of its bridge is to connect first and second blocks, which desirably replaces prior connection methods that consumed silicon real estate and interfered with the goal of shrinking the sizes or increasing the densities of memory arrays. Ex. 1005, 1:11–25, 3:20–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80 (“allowing a single staircase to access both memory arrays”), 83 (“a stairstep electrically couples to a respective gate layer (wordline) in both of the blocks on the right and left”). Dr. Banerjee also underscores the importance of using both arrays, stating that the combination relies on “Thimmegowda’s bridge and array architecture (to drive two memory arrays with one wordline via)” as part of the reasonable expectation of success in such a combination Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 113. Petitioner and Dr. Banerjee rely upon the motivation of reducing punch-through, because punch-through causes “yield loss”; i.e., loss of the usability of the wordlines connected by the punch-through. Ex. 1003 ¶ 103; Pet. 35. However, such advantage is premised on retaining both arrays, and neither Petitioner nor Dr. Banerjee explains how the advantages of reducing punch-through should be weighed against a disadvantage of losing access to one of the two arrays. Nor do Petitioner and Dr. Banerjee discuss how the advantages of metal gate replacement should be weighed against losing access to one of the two arrays.4 Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Giapis, attests to the undesirability of such a combination, in which one array 4 Additionally, the claims of the ’604 patent do not require a metal conductor portion; Petitioner does not explain why gate replacement to a metal conductor from a polysilicon conductor, described as used in Lee’s “memory device at large,” (Pet. 40) is a benefit associated with Lee’s finger teaching relevant to the claims. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 50–54. We agree with Patent Owner that the advantage of preventing individual wordlines from becoming unusable because of punchthrough would be outweighed by the loss of half of the wordlines if one of the memory arrays were to become unavailable because its connections were removed.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“III. DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (Mar. 20, 2020) additional briefing. Papers 12, 14. Because we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its obviousness contentions, we need not resolve whether Fintiv would require discretionary denial of the Petition.6” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“at the critical time “would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2-3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) 2 We apply AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the ’604 patent because it was filed after, and never claimed the benefit of an effective filing date before, March 16, 2013. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (63); Pet. 6. 3 Neither party presents evidence or arguments regarding objective evidence of non-obviousness. Pet. 89; Prelim. Resp. level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience).” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–43). Petitioner further asserts that a POSITA “would have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about 3D NAND’s structure, its component parts, how it operates, and how it is controlled.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide any such assessment in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’604 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,450,604 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00793 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Micron’s rehearing requests, finding no misapprehension or overlooked matter in its denial of institution based on the failure to show the challenged claims obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Petitioner’s own formulations of the grounds based on either Seo or Nam in combination with Choi posit the alternative theories that either Seo or Nam alone disclose Limitation [1.D], or the combination of either Seo or Nam with Choi teaches this limitation. Although Petitioner did not invoke inherency by name for the theories based on Seo or Nam alone, this is, in effect, the nature of Petitioner’s assertions, namely, voltage differentials in Seo and Nam would inherently remove fast charges. For example, with respect to Seo, Petitioner argues that “Seo teaches having a higher voltage on unselected WLs (e.g., adjacent WLs to the selected WL) during the first time period,” and “the ’342 patent recognizes [that] this voltage differential removes fast charges.” Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:24–34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–131) (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 82–83 (relying on the ’342 patent to support the contention that Nam teaches Limitation [1.D] because Nam “teaches having a higher voltage on unselected WLs (including WLs adjacent to the selected WL) relative to the selected WL during the first time period” (citing Ex. 1001, 12:24–34) (emphasis omitted)). Petitioner does not argue that Seo and Nam expressly disclose removing fast charges or sufficiently explain how a POSITA would have understood that the procedures used in Seo and Nam would have removed fast charges; instead, Petitioner effectively argues that removing fast charges is the inherent result of applying the voltage differential. See, e.g., Pet. 36 (stating Seo would have been understood to disclose “performing its read operation on chargetrap memories, which removes fast charges”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s reliance on Choi does not cure the deficiencies set forth above. Petitioner asserts that “Choi explains the primary mechanism and unwanted impact of fast-charge loss on verification,” which provides the motivation “to use Seo’s and Nam’s methods to achieve fast charge removal to improve verification.” Req. 7 n.1. But again, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how a POSITA, looking at Choi, would have understood that either Seo’s or Nam’s techniques result in fast charge removal. In other words, even if Choi teaches the impact of fast-charge loss on verification, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that a POSITA would have understood that either Seo or Nam teach or suggest fast charge removal. It was Petitioner’s burden to establish that Seo and Nam, alone or in combination with Choi, disclose Limitation [1.D]. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended the nature of Petitioner’s argument when we determined that Petitioner did not meet that burden.” slip op. at 7
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“It was Petitioner’s burden to establish that Seo and Nam, alone or in combination with Choi, disclose Limitation [1.D]. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended the nature of Petitioner’s argument when we determined that Petitioner did not meet that burden.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s reliance on Choi does not cure the deficiencies set forth above. Petitioner asserts that “Choi explains the primary mechanism and unwanted impact of fast-charge loss on verification,” which provides the motivation “to use Seo’s and Nam’s methods to achieve fast charge removal to improve verification.” Req. 7 n.1. But again, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how a POSITA, looking at Choi, would have understood that either Seo’s or Nam’s techniques result in fast charge removal. In other words, even if Choi teaches the impact of fast-charge loss on verification, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that a POSITA would have understood that either Seo or Nam teach or suggest fast charge removal.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,600,342 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00912 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Micron’s rehearing requests, leaving institution denied because the petitions did not show that the prior-art combinations disclose or render obvious fast-charge removal.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When rehearing a decision on institution, we do not review the merits of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden to show that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“It was Petitioner’s burden to establish that Seo and Nam, alone or in combination with Choi, disclose Limitation [1.D]. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended the nature of Petitioner’s argument when we determined that Petitioner did not meet that burden.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“determined that the combinations of Seo or Nam with Choi were not persuasive. Dec. 14–15, 19–20. For example, we determined that “Dr. Liu’s statement that ‘[a] POSITA would have recognized that the lateral-electrical-field-inducing voltage differential, as Seo discloses, is what Choi describes as driving the lateral fast-charge loss,’ is not supported by objective evidence or sufficient explanation as to why a POSITA would have come to that understanding” and was therefore insufficient to support Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine Seo with Choi. Id. at 14–15. In particular, we were not persuaded that “Seo creates a large lateral electric field like the one described in Choi,” and, in any case, we disagreed that “Choi teaches that a large lateral electric field removes fast charges.” Id. at 15. Accordingly, regardless of the duration of the voltage application described in Seo, Petitioner failed to show that the combination of Seo and Choi would result in removal of fast charges. We further determined that Petitioner’s combination of Nam with Choi was problematic for similar reasons, given Petitioner’s reliance on similar arguments. See id. at 20.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art relating to charge-trap memory devices demonstrates fast charge removal. See Pet. 36, 81–82. And although Petitioner cites its declarant, Dr. Liu, for the proposition that “Seo discloses, and would have been understood to disclose, performing its read operation on charge-trap memories, which removes fast charges,” Dr. Liu does not cite objective evidence to support this assertion, aside from the ’342 patent itself. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 136). Moreover, Dr. Liu’s testimony simply circles back to logic similar to that relied on with respect to the inherency theory, namely that, given certain similarities between Seo and the ’342 patent, Seo removes fast charges because the ’342 patent teaches removing fast charges, even though Seo does not explicitly teach doing so. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 136 (“[A] POSITA would have immediately understood from reading Seo that Seo is disclosing its read operation as applicable to Flash memories, including Flash charge-trap memories. And as the ’342 states, Seo’s operation would remove fast charges in a charge-trap memory.” (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract)). As already discussed, we disagree with this logic based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support its conclusion. See Dec. 13 (“Petitioner and Dr. Liu do not provide any objective evidence or explanation as to how or why a POSITA would have understood that Seo’s voltage amounts applied during Seo’s time periods operate the same way [as in the ’342 patent] on Seo’s memory device to generate fields with sufficient magnitude and duration to remove fast charges.”). Petitioner’s assertions regarding Nam suffer from the same shortcomings. See Dec. 19–20; Pet 82 (“[A] POSITA would have found that Nam’s teachings are applicable to charge-trap devices”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 293–298.” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,600,342 - Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01321 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“adequately support the assertion that Ong, or Ong in combination with Hoff, discloses, teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious independent claims 1, 10 and 11. Therefore, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–13 are obvious over Ong and Hoff. See, e.g., Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’333 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of network-enabled consumer devices, and familiarity with payment cards, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–50). Patent Owner states that it “agrees with Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–32).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We also credit the testimony of Mr. Zaheer that a “POSITA would understand that disabling the electronic credit card of Ong refers to the functioning of the credit card and not switching between data or data flows within the credit card as claimed in the ’333 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 95). Mr. Zaheer’s testimony is consistent with the disclosures in Ong and the ’333 patent and with Mr. Lipoff’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 62 (“The card also includes a ‘disablement means’ for disabling use of the electronic credit card remotely by a card issuer or other describes is not the state of the claimed switching element because once disabled, the card cannot be reenabled; rather, it must be re-initialized.” Prelim. Resp. 34–35 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 99–100). Thus, we fail to see how Ong teaches or suggests the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1.e].” slip op. at 17
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc (quoting Magnum Oil)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on 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 ordinary 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). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. evidence and argument according to the above-referenced standard. We determine that the Petition does not satisfy the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 12
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,628,333 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Scale Video Coding LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01371 · APJ Peter D Shapiro · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, or 15 would have been obvious over either asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that any of the three cited aspects of Shao- 028 teach or suggest that bandwidth-limited conditions are identified on the link between the video router and the client devices as required by the claims. To the contrary, the only specific discussion of identifying bandwidth in Shao-028 says that it takes place upstream of the video router, rather than downstream in the link in question. See Ex. 1005, 13:39–40. Moreover, the control requests from the client devices do not convey bandwidth conditions at all. We address each of the three arguments from Petitioner on this limitation below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Shao-028 teaches or suggests “identify[ing] bandwidth-limited conditions of an internet protocol network between the video router and a [plurality/set] of video receivers.” As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Shao-028 would have rendered independent claims 1, 6 or 11 obvious. As to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 15, Petitioner makes no further allegations that would remedy the deficiency discussed above in regards to the independent claims. See Pet. 51–56. As such, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13 and 15 would have been obvious over the asserted art in Ground 1. Petitioner in Ground 2 asserts alternative arguments for why independent claims 1, 6 and 11 would have been obvious in view of Shao- 023 and an additional reference Shao-423. Pet. 56–70. Because Ground 2 relies on the same argument for why Shao-023 teaches or suggests the limitation “identify[ing] bandwidth-limited conditions of an internet protocol network between the video router and a [plurality/set] of video receivers,” see Pet. 56, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 2 for the same reasons discussed above for Ground 1.” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,019,372
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.