- Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: 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.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached
“being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,398,038 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2015 · IPR2015-00158 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Sony’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for all challenged claims because the petition failed to establish the asserted priority-date and Luick limitations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“persuaded that the probe filtering information disclosed in the ’347 application does relate to the probe filtering information in the challenged claims. Dec. 17. Specifically, we held that we were persuaded that the “probe filtering information” disclosed in the ’347 application constitutes “probe filtering information” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that language in the challenged claims. Id. The Petition did not argue, as the request now suggests, that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’347 application because the ’347 application does not provide written description support for the full scope of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the request identifies a matter in the Petition that we overlooked or misapprehended.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Table (“GCT”) constitutes “probe filtering information,” as recited in independent claims 1, 16, and 25. See Pet. 34–35. Our Decision denied the claim challenges based on Luick, holding that Petitioner had not addressed adequately the limitation in the independent claims that the “probe filtering information” is “representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories.” Dec. 32–33. Specifically, our Decision explained that the Petition did not persuade us that Luick or any of the other cited references teach this limitation. Id. at 33–34. Our Decision noted that we were persuaded that Luick’s GCT contains information about which nodes contain shared data blocks, but does not contain information about whether those nodes have the data blocks in memory 105 or cache 107. Id. at 33. Our Decision further explained that it was “not facially apparent that the information in Luick’s GCT is ‘representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories.’” Id. Additionally, our Decision noted, the Petition neither provided any explanation showing that Luick’s GCT contained information “representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories,” nor asserted that any of the other cited references teach this limitation. Id. at 33–34.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Petition’s argument that the definition of “probe filtering information” changed between the ’347 application and the ’161 application. See, e.g., Dec. 15–16. The Petition suggested that the effect of the alleged definition change is that the probe filtering information disclosed in the ’347 application bears no relationship to the claims of the ’121 patent. See Pet. 6 (“the definition of ‘probe filtering information’ changed between the [’347 application] and the ’121 Patent such that the definition in the [’347 application] is admittedly unrelated to the claims of the ’121 Patent”). In our Decision, we held that, contrary to the Petition’s argument, we were persuaded that the probe filtering information disclosed in the ’347 application does relate to the probe filtering information in the challenged claims. Dec. 17. Specifically, we held that we were persuaded that the “probe filtering information” disclosed in the ’347 application constitutes “probe filtering information” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that language in the challenged claims. Id. The Petition did not argue, as the request now suggests, that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’347 application because the ’347 application does not provide written description support for the full scope of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the request identifies a matter in the Petition that we overlooked or misapprehended.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,296,121
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.