• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00694 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 23, 29, or 30 obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we are persuaded, on the present record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’330 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, Petitioner’s proposal is a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we, therefore, adopt it for this decision. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe this term to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached

    “In light of the analysis of the patentability of the claims that follows, and having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the dispute. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803, supra. C. Other Terms We determine there are no other claim terms that need to be construed for this decision.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,010,330
• Toyota Motor Corporation v. General Electric CompanyRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 14, 2019 · IPR2019-00018 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Toyota’s rehearing request, leaving the denial of institution on claims 16–19 in place because the Petition did not explain how the proposed combination supplied the claimed second DC/DC conversion device.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Mitsutani’s inverter also should be included in its proposed combination of Robinson and Mitsutani. Req. Reh’g 4. Petitioner admits that “the Petition did not call it out separately.” Id. However, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement the Petition, or submit new arguments that were not made in the Petition, after the Decision has noted the deficiencies in the Petitioner’s original analysis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “proposed prior art combination teaches or suggests “a second DC/DC conversion device coupleable to an internal charging device,” as recited in independent claim 16. Dec. 11−15. In its Petition, Petitioner asserts that Robinson discloses the claimed “second DC/DC conversion device.” Pet. 31−32 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 145, Fig. 4). Petitioner modifies Robinson’s Figure 4 to “include an additional 4−34 V scavenger power converter for device port 4.” Id. Petitioner’s modified Figure 4 of Robinson is reproduced below with annotations added by Petitioner (id.).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “The burden to prove unpatentability is on the petitioner, not on the patent owner or the Board. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that the petitioner in an inter partes proceeding has the initial burden of production and the burden” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “internal charging device” to device port 4 (light pink). Pet. 31. Petitioner asserts that “[t]his second 4−34V scavenger power converter is ‘coupleable to an internal charging device,’ as claimed, because the combined Robinson/Mitsutani system teaches a motor generator that is internal to the vehicle and would be connected to Robinson’s device port 4.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76) (emphases added). slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,821,668
• Toyota Motor Corp. v. GE Hybrid Technologies, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2019 · IPR2019-00015 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–16 because the petition did not adequately explain why the prior art would be modified to meet the vehicle-control limitation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. PRINCIPLES OF LAW A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “pertaining to a vehicle control unit. Pet. 20, 24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. The Petition and the Miller Declaration provide evidence that Sugimoto discloses control device 60, and that one skilled in the art would have considered Sugimoto’s control device 60 to be a vehicle control unit, as required by each of claims 1 and 5. Id. The Petition and the Miller Declaration also provide evidence that Sugimoto’s control device 60 controls a switch. Pet. 17–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50. Such evidence alone, however, does not provide sufficient reasoning, with adequate rational underpinnings, for modifying Fassnacht’s process to include a vehicle control unit that is allowed to turn on a first switch when the vehicle is below a first threshold temperature. Rather, as we explained in our Decision, “[t]he allegations in the Petition rely on an assumption that mere inclusion of a vehicle control unit as part of Fassnacht’s method would result in the claimed method.” Dec. 13 (citing Pet. 20, 22–24). Further, even though we did not specifically cite paragraphs 52–53, 61–62, and 103–109 of the Miller Declaration in our Decision, we did not overlook or misapprehend them. These paragraphs provide detailed explanations of how Sugimoto’s control device 60 could have been incorporated in to Fassnacht’s vehicle, but these descriptions also start from the assumption that merely including Sugimoto’s control unit 16 in Fassnacht’s process would have resulted in the claimed method. Neither the Petition nor the Miller Declaration explain why one skilled in the art would modify Fassnacht’s process to include the step of allowing the vehicle control unit to turn on a switch when such a step is unnecessary to Fassnact’s process. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he mere capability of pulling the handles is not the inquiry that the Board should have made; it should have determined whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art apparatus to arrive at the claimed rowing machine.”).” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “pertaining to a vehicle control unit. Pet. 20, 24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. The Petition and the Miller Declaration provide evidence that Sugimoto discloses control device 60, and that one skilled in the art would have considered Sugimoto’s control device 60 to be a vehicle control unit, as required by each of claims 1 and 5. Id. The Petition and the Miller Declaration also provide evidence that Sugimoto’s control device 60 controls a switch. Pet. 17–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50. Such evidence alone, however, does not provide sufficient reasoning, with adequate rational underpinnings, for modifying Fassnacht’s process to include a vehicle control unit that is allowed to turn on a first switch when the vehicle is below a first threshold temperature. Rather, as we explained in our Decision, “[t]he allegations in the Petition rely on an assumption that mere inclusion of a vehicle control unit as part of Fassnacht’s method would result in the claimed method.” Dec. 13 (citing Pet. 20, 22–24). Further, even though we did not specifically cite paragraphs 52–53, 61–62, and 103–109 of the Miller Declaration in our Decision, we did not overlook or misapprehend them. These paragraphs provide detailed explanations of how Sugimoto’s control device 60 could have been incorporated in to Fassnacht’s vehicle, but these descriptions also start from the assumption that merely including Sugimoto’s control unit 16 in Fassnacht’s process would have resulted in the claimed method. Neither the Petition nor the Miller Declaration explain why one skilled in the art would modify Fassnacht’s process to include the step of allowing the vehicle control unit to turn on a switch when such a step is unnecessary to Fassnact’s process. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he mere capability of pulling the handles is not the inquiry that the Board should have made; it should have determined whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art apparatus to arrive at the claimed rowing machine.”).” slip op. at 3

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,409,052
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. Invt Spe LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01556 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 4 was obvious over Padovani and Gils.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “B. Principles of Law In an inter partes review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied on). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Although Petitioner contends “a POSITA would have been motivated to provide greater protection for the decimal integer portion (an error in which would be magnified versus an error in the decimal fraction portion)” in Padovani (Pet. 33), Petitioner does not identify any passage or combination of passages in Padovani that teaches or suggests providing, or even the need to provide, greater protection for one decimal portion than the other decimal portion, let alone by using “different coding schemes for the different parts.” Id. As Patent Owner asserts, “Padovani discloses using a single code to encode the DRC message[,]” and “does not teach using multiple codes to encode different portions of the DRC message.” Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 45:20–22 (emphasis added)). We recognize that Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Min, testifies that, “by virtue of Padovani contemplating the use of an (n,k) coding scheme,” the POSITA “would have naturally sought out similar coding schemes [as those of Gils] to protect DRC messages.” See Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 156). Dr. Min further testifies that “a POSITA would have been motivated to provide greater protection for certain bits by selecting appropriate code words generated by one or more of the coding schemes contemplated by Gils,” and thus, use “different coding schemes for the different parts.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 132. Dr. Min’s testimony, however, does not address adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have used together different coding schemes from Gils, let alone a separate scheme for certain bits over the other bits. As Dr. Min testifies, “a single UEP coding scheme could also be used depending upon how a POSITA would have wanted to implement unequal error protection.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 132; see Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 132). As such, Dr. Min acknowledges that a single unequal error protection coding scheme could be used as well as applying different coding schemes to different parts of a message. Here, Dr. Min’s testimony that a single unequal error protection coding scheme could be used further undermines Petitioner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the different coding schemes for different parts as set forth in Gils. Thus, Dr. Min’s testimony does not adequately explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied different coding schemes from Gils to the DRC message of Padovani, much less in the manner proposed by Petitioner, of providing greater protection for the decimal integer portion than the decimal fraction portion, especially when Padovani discloses “using a single code to encode the DRC message.” See Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 45:20–22).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Here, for these reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence from prior art references or Dr. Min’s declaration testimony to support its contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Gils’s techniques to encode Padovani’s DRC message in the manner required by the claims—such that the most significant bit of the plurality of bits is encoded to be less susceptible to errors. Petitioner also has not demonstrated articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Instead, we conclude that Petitioner used improper hindsight to reconstruct the claimed subject matter by using the claims as a guide to combine the prior art references. Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize- Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“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.’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, Dr. Min’s contention that “[t]he nature of binary numbers (or other base-x number systems) means that the leftmost bit of any binary number is the most significant bit” (Ex. 1017 ¶ 154) is conclusory. As Patent Owner points out, “Dr Min’s declaration, however, merely repeats the allegations of the Petition without any explanation or citation to any supporting or corroborating evidence.” Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 154). That is, “[t]here is no proffered evidence that it was well understood by a POSITA at the time that the leftmost bit in binary numbers, and specifically in the DRC message of Padovani, is the ‘most significant bit.’” Prelim. Resp. 20. For that reason, we give little weight to Dr. Min’s uncorroborated testimony that “the leftmost bit of any binary number is the most significant bit.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations[.]”).” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,206,587
• Apple Inc. / Zte(Usa) Inc. v. Invt Spe LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01474 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claim 4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Bender and Piret rendered it obvious; claim 3 had been statutorily disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 4 would have been obvious over Bender and Piret. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (To prevail in an inter partes review that has been instituted, “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”). III. CONCLUSION We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’587 patent challenged in the Petition. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’587 patent, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “We agree with Patent Owner. “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Tri–Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477 (1935)). An inter partes review cannot be instituted on claims that have been disclaimed and no longer exist. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). This conclusion is consistent with other panel decisions addressing this issue. See, e.g., Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, Case IPR2018-00935, Paper 9, 9–10 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2018); Vestas-Am. Wind Tech. Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., Case IPR2018-01015, Paper 9, 12–14 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018). Accordingly, we treat claim 3 as having never been part of the ’587 patent, and do not institute inter partes review on this claim. As discussed above, we regard claim 4 as the only challenged claim. See Sections I.A and I.E.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, a plain reading of the reference does not support a finding that Bender teaches or suggests that the FEC scheme is used to encode the SNR itself. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Bender’s FEC description would have provided reason to look to Piret’s encoding techniques for encoding Bender’s “quality” information. That is, although we agree with the Petitioner that Piret teaches and suggests a method of encoding less significant bits differently from the more significant bits of each data word, wherein the most significant bit of the plurality of bits is encoded to be less susceptible to errors (Ex. 1005, 1:20–33), that alone is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of providing an encoder that encodes Bender’s SNR “quality” information, as required by claim 4. That Piret discloses encoding transmitted information does not address the requirements set forth in KSR to provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. That is, the Petitioner’s obviousness position does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have encoded the SNR value in Bender, which may not even be transmitted, using Piret’s encoding method. Indeed, Petitioner does not direct us to persuasive evidence that encoding the SNR value would have been expected to provide any advantage, outside the teachings of the ’587 patent. Here, for these reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence from prior art references or Dr. Singer’s declaration testimony to support its contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Piret’s techniques to encode Bender’s SNR values in the manner required by the claims—such that the most significant bit of the plurality of bits is encoded to be less susceptible to errors. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Instead, we conclude that Petitioner used improper hindsight to reconstruct the claimed subject matter by using the claims as a guide to combine the prior art references. Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; 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.” Id. In that regard, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Singer, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ʼ587 Patent’s invention would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with wireless communication systems or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering. Pet. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. At this juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s assessment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the current record, we apply Dr. Singer’s assessment for purposes of this Decision. We also note that the prior art of record currently in the instant proceeding is consistent with this level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,206,587
• Necksgen, Inc. v. Simpson Performance Products, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2018-00133 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the asserted art taught claim 1[d] or establish motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally: “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “the Preliminary Response. In our Decision, we determined that “[w]e do not need to construe expressly any claim terms for purposes of this Decision” because it did not appear, from the arguments presented, that any claim terms were in dispute. Dec. 6. When we considered the parties’ positions in reaching our Decision, we were aware that the term “tether” was defined in the ’529 patent, even though Petitioner did not state that expressly. In other words, we understood, and now explicitly determine, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer by setting forth a specific definition for “tether” in the ’529 patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Motivation to Combine & Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that we abused our discretion by failing to consider the appropriate claim scope when evaluating motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. Req. Reh’g 10–14. First, as discussed above, we did not fail to consider the appropriate claim scope. Second, we have now set forth that claim scope expressly. In light of our discussion above, our analysis regarding motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success is no different from that which we set forth in our Decision. Dec. 11–15. Petitioner’s reiteration of the same positions set forth in Petition does not persuade us that we abused our discretion in finding that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been promoted to modify and combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we abused our discretion with respect to these issues.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,351,529
• Nevro Corp. v. Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01831 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 1, 3, 14, and 15 because Nevro did not sufficiently show Schulman rendered the no-stimulation voltage-measurement limitation obvious.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters that the requesting party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsNot shown unpatentable

    “Schulman simply discloses that (a) when no stimulation is provided a request is made for a battery recharge and (b) when a battery recharge occurs, battery voltage is measured. Based on that alone, it is unclear when, or even if, the requested recharge will, in fact, ever occur, or whether it will occur when there is no stimulation provided. Arguably, a battery recharge normally follows a battery recharge request. But there is insufficient evidence that a battery recharge request, when there is no stimulation due to low voltage, necessarily leads to the battery being recharged, let alone recharged when there is no stimulation due to low voltage. As we stated in the Decision, “[i]ndeed, we find that the fact that microstimulator 100 has ceased operation when it emits a status signal (due to the low voltage condition) suggests the opposite; that is, the battery is not being recharged and is not performing any operation aside from emitting a status signal, which would include measuring the voltage of the rechargeable battery.” Dec. 15– 16. Accordingly, even Petitioner’s current position lacks sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s contention that Schulman renders obvious the claimed subject matter whereby “voltage is measured when no stimulation is being provided by the electronic subassembly.”” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “The Petition went no further. No explanation was given as to how one of ordinary skill in the art, given that Schulman discloses (a) requesting battery recharge via emitted periodic signals when no stimulation is provided due to low battery and (b) monitoring (and measuring) voltage during recharge, would have been led to measure voltage “when no stimulation is being provided by the electronic subassembly,” as claimed. The Petition did not explain, for example, as Petitioner now contends, that “[a]t some point, [Schulman’s] recharge request will be honored. And when recharging commences from that low voltage, zero stimulation condition, Schulman will begin measuring voltage where there is still no stimulation.” Req. 3. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked this explanation, as it was not given.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,437,193
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2017 · IPR2017-00936 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over Ginter or Ginter and Stefik.

  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 the information presented in the Petition shows “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. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner impermissibly maps two distinct claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same processing means 1200 of Stefik. Prelim. Resp. 29–31. We agree. See Unique Concepts, 939 F.2d at 1563 (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Texas Instr., 988 F.2d at 1171 (explaining that claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to processing means 1200 of Stefik is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that it is plausible that Petitioner is mapping “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” to processing means 1200 and processor element 1201, respectively, where processor element 1201 is a component of processing means 1200. We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that mapping with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). Moreover, as each of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” are recited as performing functions, if anything, it would appear that both “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” should be mapped to processor element 1201, which would still be deficient for the reasons set forth above concerning processing means 1200. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner maps the ASIC chip of processing means 1200, which appears to be the same as processor element 1201, of Stefik to the recited “microprocessor,” but that an ASIC chip cannot correspond properly to a “microprocessor.” Prelim. Resp. 31. We agree. Patent Owner cites to a webpage that defines ASIC as follows: (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) Pronounced “a-sick.” A chip that is custom designed for a specific application rather than a general-purpose chip such as a microprocessor. The use of ASICs improve performance over general-purpose CPUs, because ASICs are “hardwired” to do a specific job and do not incur the overhead of fetching and interpreting stored instructions. Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2002); see also Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/microprocessor (accessed: June 12, 2017) (Ex. 3001) (microprocessor is “an integrated computer circuit that performs all the functions of a CPU”). Based on the above, we find that an ASIC is not a microprocessor. Against this objective evidence, Petitioner only states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would know that an ASIC chip is a microprocessor” (Pet. 35), and provides a citation to paragraph 223 of Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration, the relevant portion of which merely states, similarly, that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an ASIC chip functions would include those of a microprocessor,” without further relevant explanation or analysis. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one of claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 is unpatentable as obvious over Ginter and Stefik.” slip op. at 10

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,840,437
• Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00455 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims, failing to provide a sufficient rationale for either proposed prior-art combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Petitioner, and for that reason, section 325(d) is not relevant to our analysis. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. We consider Patent Owner’s three underlying contentions under this standard.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “cooling air unobstructed by exterior body panels and would avoid receiving hot air from inside the engine compartment, thereby cooling the CVT more effectively, reducing wear, and improving CVT efficiency. Pet. 19, 22; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 48–50, 54, 55, 230, 233; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–5. The premise of this reasoning is that airflow to Suzuki’s CVT is obstructed by an exterior body panel or panels. That premise is not supported adequately the record.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that no claim terms need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other

    “We reserve ruling on the Motion to Seal. Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015 will remain under seal in the interim. After the absence of a timely request for rehearing, or if filed, after resolution of a request for rehearing, Patent Owner may seek authorization to file a Motion to Expunge Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(d)(1), 42.56.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,217,501
• Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall, L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · PGR2016-00037 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review of claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,197,745 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’745 patent” or “the challenged patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, CaptionCall, L.L.C., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of broadest reasonable construction standard in inter partes review9). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner proposes constructions for “message” recited in claims 2, 4–8, and 12 and for “module” recited in claims 2–6 and 8. Pet. 9–11. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions as overly narrow. Prelim. Resp. 8–9. We determine, however, that no claim terms need express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12) that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an apparatus that facilitates voice communication and captioned text communication using a relay for hearing-impaired users over one or more communications networks and, under specified circumstances— when captioning has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user and the system determines that an attempted connection has failed—automatically reconnects to a captioning communication service. In other words, the claim is directed to a communication device that automatically reconnects to a captioning communication service following an unwanted interruption to the 12 captioning communication service in certain circumstances. See Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing the field of the disclosure as relating to a communication device that automatically reconnects to the captioning communication service “following an unwanted interruption to the captioning communication session”). We determine that claim 1 as a whole is not directed to redialing a telephone as “callers have performed for as long as there have been telephones.” See Pet. 20. Moreover, the claim is directed to an apparatus having communication elements and a processor, and requires two connections and captioning, which, taken as a whole, distinguish claim 1 from a conventional telephone and further supports our determination that the claim merely involves, but is not directed to, the concept of reconnection or redialing. Moreover, looking at the elements individually, claim 1 requires communication elements coupled with a processor configured to able to connect a communication device and connect with a captioning session over two connections. Claim 1 recites a function—“automatically connect with the captioning communication service through a second connection to establish a captioning communication session during the voice communication session responsive to a determination that an attempted connection to the captioning communication service failed during a time in which a caption select option has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user, wherein the attempted automatic connection through the second connection is not made during a time in which the caption select option has been 13 disabled by the hearing-impaired user”—which requires more than “redialing” a telephone. See Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Specifically, the claimed apparatus only performs the “automatically connect” function if three conditions are met: (i) responsive to a determination that an attempted connection to the captioning communication service failed (ii) during a time in which a caption select option has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user, and (iii) “the attempted automatic connection through the second connection is not made during a time in which the caption select option has been disabled by the hearing-impaired user.”” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “excerpts from Parker as purportedly describing aspects of the automatically reconnect limitation. Id. at 40–42. Petitioner does not assert that either the Ultratec User Guide or Parker alone would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the automatically connect function with the three conditional limitations (id.), nor is such an assertion required under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner is required under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, to explain how the combination of the references would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill 25 in the art the recited automatically connect function with its three conditional limitations. Petitioner has not provided such an explanation, much less adequate analysis by Mr. Zatkovich or factual support as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the separate disclosures of the references to teach the automatically connect limitations. Specifically absent from the Petition is any discussion as to how Petitioner’s combination of references would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations of automatically connecting under the required conditions—the failed attempt limitation, the when-enabled limitation, and the when-not-disabled limitation. Petitioner’s combination relies on Parker’s reconnection function to establish a lost persistent connection, but Parker’s reconnection function does not do so conditionally, much less under the specific conditions required by claim 1. Petitioner does not explain how the combination of Parker’s unconditional reconnection function would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to retry conditionally based on whether the Ultratec User Guide’s caption button was enabling captioning and had not been disabled by the caption telephone user. Furthermore, Petitioner contends that “adding an auto-retry and/or auto-reconnect feature as in Parker to a captioned telephone device as disclosed in [the Ultratec User Guide and Engelke] would amount to simply adding a known technique to a known system, wherein the technique operates in the same way as it was already known to operate and dos not have any unpredictable result.” Pet. 34. As such, Petitioner’s combination 26 expressly relies on Parker’s auto-retry and/or auto-reconnect feature “as in Parker,” which is an unconditional retry in the event of a lost connection. In sum, neither reference by itself describes the automatically reconnect limitation and Petitioner fails to articulate how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claimed automatic reconnect in view of the cited disparate disclosures from the references. “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Petitioner asserts in a conclusory manner that the combination of a teaching of a button to enable or disable captioning with a teaching of automatic reconnection unrelated to whether captioning is enabled or disabled would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the automatic reconnection limitation. Petitioner fails to provide adequate explanation or factual support. This flaw of the Petition is particularly problematic when the threshold for institution is “more likely than not,” as here, rather than the threshold of “a reasonable likelihood” required to institute an inter partes review. Compare 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), with 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,197,745

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.