- Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 unpatentable, principally because Yea did not establish the claimed asymmetrical coverage areas.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,582 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’582 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Communications Components Antenna Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute 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 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–28 of the ’582 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed construction of this limitation is supported by the specification of the ’582 patent. The ’582 patent discloses replacing a single sector coverage area with sub-sector coverage areas, at least one of which is an asymmetrical coverage area. Ex. 1001, 3:16–18. The ’582 patent discloses that the use of asymmetrical coverage areas permits the total coverage area to closely approximate the symmetrical sector coverage area being replaced, without creating excessively large sub-sector handover zones or introducing sever degradation in network performance. Id. at 3:18–24. The ’582 patent discloses creating the asymmetrical coverage areas by replacing an existing antenna with an antenna that has substantially the same coverage area, but divides the coverage area into a plurality of separate asymmetrical beams or sub-sectors. Id. at 4:32–38. As disclosed by the ’582 patent, the replacement antenna produces a plurality of separate beams, each defining a new sub-sector with only a small overlapping area between them and which together provide substantially identical coverage to the sector supported by the original antenna, to upgrade the single sector to a plurality of sub-sectors without significantly affecting neighboring sites. Id. at 4:51–57. The replacement antenna introduces asymmetry into the generated beam pattern. Id. at 4:58–60. The introduction of asymmetrical beams by the replacement antenna allows close approximation of the coverage area of the conventional sector antenna being replaced. Id. at 5:61–64. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” as a plurality of replacement sub-sector beams, at least one of which has an asymmetrical shape, where asymmetry includes deliberate or inherent asymmetry as the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“49 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, the district court invalidated claims of the patent in suit on summary judgment based on the measured dimensions of a prior art patent figure. Id. at 1148. The Federal Circuit reversed, warning “that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” Id. at 1149. Petitioner here does not identify any portion of Yea disclosing that Figures 4 and 8 are drawn accurately enough to determine an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Petitioner also fails to cite to any disclosure in Yea that identifies or describes an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Furthermore, Petitioner also has not explained why the shapes shown in the linear scale drawings of Figure 4 would show similar shapes when converted to a logarithmic scale. Additionally, Petitioner does not explain why the carrier to interference ratio shown in Figure 8 can be used to accurately measure antenna radiation beam patterns. We find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the plots shown in Figures 4 and 8 of Yea can be used to determine whether the antenna radiation beam pattern is asymmetrical. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that Yea anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and 20. b. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 Petitioner argues that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27. Pet. 47–53. In so arguing, Petitioner relies on Yea as disclosing the claimed asymmetrical coverage area. Id. Because we are not persuaded that Yea discloses this limitation, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“as well as testimony of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Cosgrove. Under Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, any genuine issues of material fact created by the testimonial evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Even reviewing the testimony of Mr. Collins in the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine Petitioner has established only that asymmetrical beams may be used in a planar array antenna, but not that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Mr. Collins cites to Litva (Ex. 1009) and Wästberg (Ex. 1018) in stating that prior art steered beams of a planar array antenna can be asymmetrical beams. Ex. 1024 ¶ 179. We credit Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Cosgrove to determine Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Further, Petitioner fails to set forth a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the asymmetrical beams of the prior art with the disclosure of Yea. Pet. 39–40. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that using asymmetrical beams in Yea would have been obvious. We therefore conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11–15, 18–22, 24, and 27 would have been obvious over Yea, Metawave Website, Litva, and Wästberg.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,311,582 - Toyota Motor Corporation v. Signal IP, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 9, 2016 · IPR2016-00293 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, and 6 obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (Ex. 1001, “the ’927 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). In response, Patent Owner, Signal IP, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we deny institution of inter partes review of the ’927 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(1) a related inter partes review (Pet. 8), and (2) a related matter before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (id. at 6–8). Regarding the related inter partes review, the Board previously construed the term “alert command” as raw alert data that is used to generate an alert signal, and the term “alert signal” as a signal that provides a visual or audio alert to a driver. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc., Case IPR2015-00968, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2015), Paper 6. In order to reach our decision below, we need only construe the terms “alert command” and “alert signal.” We, therefore, decline to specifically construe any other claim terms at this time. We agree with Petitioner’s construction of the terms “alert command” and “alert signal,” consistent with our prior construction in IPR2015-00968. (See id. for our prior construction of the terms.) Thus, we construe the term “alert command” as raw alert data that is used to generate an alert signal, and the term “alert signal” as a signal that provides a visual or audio alert to a driver. Id. As explained below, even using Petitioner’s construction of these terms, Petitioner’s challenge fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious “to modify Pakett’s system such that it determines whether the ‘alert signal,’ as opposed to the ‘alert command,’ was active for a ‘threshold time’ as the claim requires.” Pet. 47. Petitioner asserts that this could be accomplished by activating a warning (alert signal) as soon as Pakett recognizes that an obstacle is present, and then applying the processing method previously applied to the persistence period instead to determine whether to sustain the warning. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 101–04). Petitioner asserts that “one of ordinary skill in the art would consider Pakett’s delay of a warning until after the end of the persistence period to be nothing more than an optional redundancy,” and, thus, that this modification would have been obvious as “nothing more than a routine, obvious design choice.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 104). We disagree with Petitioner that the cited portions of Pakett’s teaching to delay the warning until after the persistence period is “nothing more than an optional redundancy,” at least because the cited portions of Packett do not indicate, either explicitly or implicitly, the 17 function of waiting for the persistence period before sending a warning to the driver indicators as optional or redundant. See id. Pakett clearly states that during the persistence period, “no warnings are sent to the driver indicators.” Ex. 1002, 6:50–51 (emphasis added). Pakett explains that waiting through the persistence period before sending warnings to the driver indicators prevents the system from incorrectly identifying stationary obstacles that were identified by the square wave generator 29 as valid obstacles in the blind spot. Id. at 7:56–63. Pakett thus explains that waiting through the persistence period before sending warnings to the driver indicators filters out false positives of objects in the blind spot of the vehicle. Id.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,714,927 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2015-01049 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute 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 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 5, 7– 10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of the ’577 patent and, therefore, deny the Petition for inter partes review..” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24. Also, as cited by Petitioner, “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Id. at 13:24–27. Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing hierarchical address translation[s] according to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line. In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In a computer network for transmitting information, messages can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices. In known computer networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control” and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form of individual packets of information) from source devices to destination devices. Ex. 1001, 1:4–10. Patent Owner also cites certain dictionary definitions. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner states that “modifying” transmission is “nowhere in the record.” Id. Nonetheless, Patent Owner does not explain why the embodiment cited by the Petitioner above is not relevant to construing the claims. Because the embodiment cited by Petitioner suggests that access control may be used to change the destination address of a packet, we apply a broader definition than proposed by Patent Owner. We find the broadest reasonable construction of “access control” to include restrictions or modifications on the intended destination address to which a packet is to be transmitted.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00973 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Hendel discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that independent claim 1, or claims 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, 28, 29, and 31 that depend therefrom, are anticipated by Hendel.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,081,522, filed June 30, 1997, issued June 27, 2000 (Ex. 1007, “Hendel”). 2 U.S. Patent No. 5,938,736, filed June 30, 1997, issued Aug. 17, 1999 (Ex. 1008, “Muller”). 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,867,495, filed Nov. 18, 1996, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1019, “Elliot”). 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “access control,” “associative memory,” “packet label,” “responsive,” and “megapacket.” Pet. 5–9. We determine that the terms “associative memory,” “packet label,” “responsive,” and “megapacket” do not require express construction for purposes of our Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As to the term “access control,” Petitioner asserts that “[a] person of skill in the art would have understood ‘access control’ to encompass restrictions or modifications of the transmission of a packet.” Pet. 5. Petitioner relies on the following passage from the Specification: [T]he invention can be used to augment or override routing decisions otherwise made by the router, using the access control element 120. In addition to specifying the packet 130 is to be dropped or forwarded to the higher-level processor, the access control element 120 can alter the output interface, which was selected by the routing element 110, to another selected output interface. The invention can thus be used to implement QOS (quality of service), and other administrative policies. Ex. 1001, 6:9–18. Patent Owner asserts “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘access control’ is ‘restriction of packets from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices.’” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner relies on the following passage from the Specification (id.): In a computer network for transmitting information, messages can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices. In known computer networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control” and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form of individual packets of information) from source devices to destination devices.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“‘discarding’ packets does not concern access control,” that Hendel’s “packets are only filtered or discarded as part of the packet forwarding process when there is a problem with the packet,” and thus, “Hendel refers to such filtering or discarding occurring when packets are ‘ill-formed’ or have ‘no appropriate destination[s]’ or ‘unsupported’ headers.” Prelim Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:39–40, 10:51–52, 13:9–11). We agree. Although we did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the claim term “access result,” Patent Owner nevertheless makes a salient argument. We find Petitioner has not shown that the filtering decision is done “in response to [] at least one selected match” as required by claim 1. The Specification supports that a successful match leading to an access result is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 21 (“the ‘matching entry,’ at most, provides a destination for Hendel’s system to forward the packet . . . [but,] where a destination is found, the packet is forwarded; there is no disclosure to generate any access result to possibly restrict access to the destination.”). Neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s Declarant, has tied an actual match in Hendel to a decision whether to forward the packet or make some modification to the intended transmission of the packet.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - PTAB · Jul 20, 2015 · IPR2015-00517 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither petition showed a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 30, 32, 42, or 45 were unpatentable over Kitamura or Mehrotra.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We review the Petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Based on our review of the record, we conclude that neither Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the challenged claims is not patentable, based on the Petitions filed. See 35 U.S.C. § 314. B.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Kitamura is largely silent as to the specific functioning of the D/A conversion circuit 10. Kitamura discloses that D/A conversion circuit 10 and A/D conversion circuit 13 “preferably share a voltage dividing element and a reference voltage supply (for the purpose of making their characteristics uniform),” and level differences to maximize the operating margin (Ex. 1010 ¶ 11), but does not disclose a “selection” between reference voltages or signals. Although Petitioners emphasize the obviousness of certain elements of the challenged claims (Pet. 25– 26), the obviousness of selecting a reference voltage versus outputting a voltage from a D/A conversion is not discussed. Indeed, Dr. Baker’s discussion is clear (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–79) as to how the output voltages could be set, but it remains unclear how Kitamura itself suggests the examples proffered. The normal function of a D/A converter is not to select between reference voltages, but to render the digital input into analog form. We are not persuaded that Kitamura teaches or suggests the selection of one of a plurality of reference voltages in accordance with the input information, per the challenged claims. In addition, the Petitions fail to provide any rationale for why Kitamura’s disclosure of D/A conversion renders the selection of a reference voltage or signal obvious. For these reasons, Patent Owner’s contentions that Kitamura does not teach or suggest “reference voltage selecting means,” or equivalent elements, or “reference voltages,” per the challenged claims, are persuasive. C.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Reference Voltage Selection Claim 1 recites “reference voltage selecting means for selecting one of a plurality of reference voltages,” with claims 9, 12, and 30 reciting “selecting device which selects one of a plurality of reference signals,” and claims 42 and 45 reciting “selecting one of a plurality of predetermined reference signals.” Petitioners acknowledge that the means-plus-function element in claim 1 is “governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6,” and that the construction of the claim term in claim 1 “is applicable to claim terms” recited in claims 9, 12, 30, 42, and 45, discussed above. Pet. 5, 8. Petitioners assert that “the verify reference voltage select circuit 222 selects and provides such a reference voltage to the comparator,” and is the corresponding structure described in the specification. Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4552). For purposes of this Decision, we construe the referenced claim terms according to that structure and apply the same to the analysis below. B.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Reference Voltages” “Reference Signals” All of the independent claims of the challenged claims recite either “reference signals” or “reference voltages.” Petitioners emphasize that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted these features to be broad enough to include and be met by either a digital reference voltage/ signal or an analog reference voltage/signal.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–58). For purposes of this Decision, we construe the reference voltages and signals terms as being met by either digital or analog reference voltages/signals, and apply that construction to the analysis below. slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,764,571
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.