- Intel Corporation v. Ax Wireless, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01146 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show Huang or Sun was prior art to claims 1–10, which it argued were obvious over those references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For purposes of institution, Petition bears the burden to establish, by a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the cited art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Where unpatentability rests on a document that is prior art to a challenged patent but for that patent’s priority claim to an earlier effective filing date, such a priority claim is not presumed valid. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the USPTO does not routinely determine whether such priority claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineer-ing or a similar discipline, and/or at least two to three years of experience working or conducting research in wireless commu-nication protocols, or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 72). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’146 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“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) (2022). The Board is required to construe “only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner and Patent Owner, in extended briefing, contest the construction of the phrase “detecting, from the received wireless packet, the second header field which repeats the first header field,” as it appears in claim 1. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 1; Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply 3. However, both parties appear to agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term should apply. See Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 15. Further, Petitioner has clarified that its statements as to the scope of the term are directed to its assertions that the ’146 patent lacks support for the claimed subject matter in its parent applications. Pet. Reply. 5–6. Consequently, we address claim construction arguments in their context of the parties’ priority contentions. See infra at II.D.1.” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner has shown sufficient written description support for the claims, including the disputed “detecting” limitation. The “decode-to-learn- ‘D’” description in the specification of the ’146 patent and in the provisional application to which the ’146 patent claims priority describe a specific procedure for the claimed “detecting, from the received wireless packet, the second header field which repeats the first header field.”3 See Ex. 1001, 2 Petitioner specifically asserts that Huang qualifies under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Pet. 2, 19 (“by more than a year”). However, Huang’s patent issuance date of April 28, 2020 does not qualify under § 102(b) because it is less than one year before the December 29, 2020 filing date of the ’146 patent. Nevertheless, Petitioner has made an effective showing that Sun would qualify as prior art sufficient to shift the burden of production to Patent Owner. 3 Patent Owner does not explicitly show support for each of the applications in the priority chain. Patent Owner also cites to a Pre-Grant Publication rather than the underlying application despite the fact that such a Publication may include amendments to the originally filed application that would not evidence written description. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.215 (a); MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE §1121; Ex. 2003, 7 (showing amendments 3:1–11; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35; Ex. 1008, 5–6; PO Sur-Reply 6. The “D” information is received in the wireless packet, and the receiver determines therefrom whether there is a second header field that repeats the first header field. See Ex. 1008, 5–6; PO Sur-Reply 6. The written description further includes descriptions of other embodiments for receiver detection with variable repetition, including detection “without knowing D a priori.” Ex. 1001, 2:18–3:59.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,212,146 - Truist Bank v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · May 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00144 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Oakes supports the claimed mobile device, is not prior art, and the petition therefore did not meet the reasonable-likelihood threshold.
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 and the Preliminary 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) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes trial on behalf of the Director”).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Prelim. Resp. 24–26. We determine that this argument and evidence is more persuasive and better supported than Petitioner’s contrary arguments and evidence. We determine that Patent Owner’s position that a skilled artisan in the relevant time frame would have found clear support for the full-scope of the invention claimed including a “mobile device” as recited and construed as a “handheld computing device” is well-supported. In contrast, Petitioner’s argument and evidence are based on an improper claim construction and lack substantial supporting evidence. For these reasons, we determine that Oakes does provide written description support for “mobile device” as recited in the challenged claims of the ’432 patent and the ’432 patent is entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the application that issued as Oakes. As a result, Oakes is not prior art to the ’432 patent and all the challenges in the Petition fail because they rely on Oakes as prior art.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“On this record and for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we construe “mobile device” as “handheld computing device,” because both parties ask us to adopt the District Court’s claim construction. 8 We do not 8 Petitioner does not dispute that we should “adopt[ ] the claim constructions [Patent Owner] advanced and the Court adopted in [the PNC Litigation].” include the phrase “excluding laptops” as part of this construction as the arguments in support of this construction in the Petition are contradicted by the evidence and Petitioner has otherwise failed to support the inclusion of this phrase in the construction.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’432 patent and the cited prior art. For that reason, and in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,482,432 - PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00050 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted references qualified as prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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 Technology, 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”)). 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 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“But, even accepting these premises, we disagree with the conclusion Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’974 application does not provide written description support for the claims of the ’638 patent merely because the scope of the claims includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 15–16, 22. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“D. Obviousness Grounds Petitioner contends that the subject matter of claims 1–30 of the ’638 patent would have been obvious over various combinations of Oakes-I, Oakes-II, Medina, and Roach (collectively, “the asserted references”). Pet. 5, 32–100. Petitioner argues that the asserted references are prior art because the claims of the ’638 patent are not entitled to a priority date earlier than July 28, 2017. Id. at 4–5, 11–29. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of success because Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that the asserted references qualify as prior art. Prelim. Resp. 18–59. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable based on the asserted references.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide16 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.17 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 11) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 12. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response.” slip op. at 37
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,402,638 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Oakes was prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’247 application does not provide written description support for the device limitation merely because the scope of the claim includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 17–18, 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”). There are situations where a claim’s breadth results in a lack of written description support, but Petitioner fails to show that such a situation is present here. In its argument, Petitioner primarily relies on Reckitt, but” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that Oakes is prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2006); Paper 13 (relating to the Reply); and Paper 19 (relating to the Sur-reply). In each of these motions, the parties seek to protect as confidential certain information that relates to the issue of whether Petitioner has properly identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). As we deny the Petition on the merits and do not grant the request to institute an inter partes review, the issue of identification of the real parties in interest to this proceeding is moot. Accordingly, we do not reach the arguments and evidence of the parties relating to whether the Petitioner identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition and we make no reference in this decision to the documents and information that the parties seek to protect as confidential.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,621,559 - PNC Bank, N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01071 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Oakes and Roach qualify as prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its 2 US 7,873,200 B1, filed Oct. 31, 2006, issued Jan. 18, 2011 (Ex. 1038). 3 US 2013/0155474 A1, published June 20, 2013 (Ex. 1040). 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 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “To satisfy the written description requirement [in § 112,] the disclosure of the prior application must ‘convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The sufficiency of written description support is based on “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement” necessarily “varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. The invention need not be described in haec verba, but a disclosure that merely renders obvious the claims does not provide adequate written description support. Id. at 1352.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered Dr. Noble’s testimony, but it suffers from the same deficiencies as Petitioner’s arguments. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–59. Moreover, in our view, Dr. Noble does not sufficiently explain his conclusions regarding what a person of ordinary skill would have understood the inventor of the ’247 application to possess (or not possess), and accordingly, we assign little weight to that testimony. E.g., id. ¶¶ 47, 53, 55; see TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).” slip op. at 21
- ExcludeGranted
“In the first Joint Motion to Seal, the parties request entry of a Protective Order that is substantially the same as the Board’s Default Protective Order (see Consolidated Trial Practice Guide12 at 107–122 (App. B, Protective Order Guidelines and Default Protective Order)). Paper 9, 2.13 The parties also request sealing of Exhibit 2006 and sealing of portions of the Preliminary Response relating to that exhibit. Id. at 2–3. The portions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 8) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Preliminary Response filed as Paper 11. Based on the representations in the Joint Motion to Seal (Paper 9), the parties have shown good cause for entering the Protective Order and for sealing Exhibit 2006 and the identified portions of the Preliminary Response. Paper 14 (Joint Motion to Seal the Reply) and Paper 19 (Joint Motion to Seal the Sur-reply) request sealing of the portions of the Reply and Sur-reply relating to Exhibit 2006. The portions of the Reply (Paper 13) and Sur-reply (17) requested to be sealed can be identified from the redacted version of the Reply filed as Paper 16 and from the redacted version of the Sur-reply filed as Paper 20. Based on the representations in these two Joint Motion to Seal (Papers 14 and 19), the parties have shown good cause for sealing the identified portions of the Reply and Sur-reply.” slip op. at 27
§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,482,432 - PTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · PGR2021-00065 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · PGR · Institution
The Board denied PGR on all challenged claims because the petition did not show unpatentability and the claims were not PGR-eligible.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the patent must enable a skilled artisan to practice the invention without undue experimentation. Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs, Inc., 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “An enablement analysis begins with the disclosure in the specification.” Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“Claim 1 recites an apparatus and requires the receiving system be configured to “autonomously identify a hot spot,” which requires that the device perform the action itself. Thus, the claim language excludes a user performing the claimed identification.6 The question is whether the Specification supports that language. Patent Owner argues that the language in the Specification—“pre- identified . . . prior to operating the robotic device”—includes “during a prior operation of the robot (e.g., during a past cleaning operation).” Prelim. Resp. 33–35 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:42–28:11). We determine that this meaning is supported by the Specification. As Patent Owner contends, the Specification discloses identifying “hot spot” cells during an operation and using those cells to maneuver the device both during the same operation and also in a later operation. Id. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of “prior to operating the robotic device” includes “during a past cleaning mission of the 6 In an Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary, the Examiner wrote that he and the Applicant’s attorney “discussed, including specifying that the identify step is performed autonomously, or without human input.” Ex. 1001, 212 (emphasis added). In the Applicant’s attorney’s interview summary of the same conversation that was included with the claim amendment adding the “autonomously identify” limitation, the Examiner’s characterization of the meaning of “autonomously” was not disputed. Id. at 225. The Applicant relied on the addition of the “autonomously identify” limitation to the claims to distinguish the cited art but did not discuss its meaning. Id. at 226 (“Allen fails to describe autonomously identifying a hot spot. Independent claim 13 [issued claim 1] is therefore allowable over Taylor and Allen.”). However, both Petitioner and Patent Owner acknowledge that Allen (US Patent No. 5,995,884) discloses a user selecting a spot or zone. Pet. 25, Prelim. Resp. 41 (citing Ex. 1027 (Allen), 47:1–28). cleaning apparatus,” because such an interpretation is consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 18
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable
“With specific regard to enablement, the Petitioner argues: The ’517 patent does not enable one skilled in the art to practice the inventions of claims 1, 4, and 15 because it does not provide any working example or guidance for performing the “autonomously identify” limitations—the very limitations that were allegedly novel over the prior art, resulting in the grant of the ’517 patent. Cowan [Ex. 1003], ¶¶ 90-91. Here, the ’517 patent’s complete lack of direction to the skilled artisan for the allegedly novel feature renders the claims invalid for lack of enablement. Pet. 51. Petitioner also argues that “the ’517 patent provides no working examples or guidance teaching one skilled in the art how to” “autonomously identify a hot spot or predefined zone in a map prior to initiation of a cleaning mission” and that “the ’517 patent does not even provide a ‘conceptual’ figure or description of how a receiving system performs the ‘autonomously identify’ limitation.” Id. at 53, 55. And still further, Petitioner argues that “[t]he ’517 patent’s complete failure to provide any example, direction, or guidance to the skilled artisan is dispositive and renders the claims invalid for lack of enablement.” Id. at 55. For factual support of its enablement argument, Petitioner refers back to its explanation as to how the ’517 patent fails to meet the written description requirement. Id. at 53. We reject Petitioner’s enablement ground for the same reasons we reject its written description ground. Based on the showing in the Petition, we are not persuaded that the Specification of the ’517 patent “does not provide any working example or guidance for performing the ‘autonomously identify’ limitation” or that there is no disclosure adequate to “teach[ ] one skilled in the art how to” “autonomously identify a hot spot or predefined zone in a map prior to initiation of a cleaning mission.” To the contrary, for the reasons detailed above, we determine that the “autonomously identify” limitations are adequately supported by the Specification of the ’517 patent and that the Specification of the ’517 patent would enable a skilled artisan to make and use the invention.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A skilled artisan would have had at least a four-year degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in the design and implementation of robotics and embedded systems. Cowan [Ex. 1003], ¶¶ 17-19. Additional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,813,517
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.