- PTAB · Oct 8, 2015 · IPR2015-01025 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Bruwer did not teach the claimed touch-sensor-triggered find-in-the-dark indication, and Petitioner gave no persuasive reason to modify it.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“evidence of record, and we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claims 1, 3, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Bruwer. Although Patent Owner does not specifically contest Petitioner’s assertions that Bruwer’s disclosures render the subject matter of the challenged claims obvious we find Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that the subject matter of the challenged claims would have been obvious in view of Bruwer.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 11 and its accompanying description, however, describe a circuit that activates the FITD indication either “when switch 1111 is closed by the user” or “[w]hen microchip 1113 pulls the line 1114 to high.” Ex. 1004, 13:29–30. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the portion of Bruwer cited by Petitioner and Dr. Horenstein does not disclose that the microchip activates the FITD indication in response to input from switch 1111, as required by claim 1. Although Petitioner provides a rationale as to why it would have been obvious to activate the FITD indication when the load is inactive, Petitioner provides no persuasive analysis or rationale for modifying Bruwer’s disclosed circuit to teach that the “microchip, in response to at least a signal from the touch sensor, is configured for activating a visible find-in-the-dark indication, when the load is not activated,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,265,494 - Sony Corporation / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Surpass Tech Innovation LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2015 · IPR2015-00862 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 unpatentable; the asserted combinations did not disclose applying data impulses via the scan line as claimed.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“A patent claim may be corrected through claim construction “only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But “courts may not redraft claims, whether to make them operable or to sustain their validity.” Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The burden is on Petitioner to show that a claim contains the kind of error that is considered a drafting error. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner has not shown how any of the relied upon references discloses applying data impulses via the scan line as claimed, nor has Petitioner shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known of the claimed feature. Petitioner’s reliance on Nitta’s disclosure, for example, of a source driver that conveys a plurality of data impulses to the pixels of an LCD panel via corresponding data lines (Pet. 26, 52) for both proposed grounds of unpatentability is misplaced, as that is not what is claimed. For these reasons, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1 and 2 are obvious over Suzuki, Nitta, and Lee, or claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Jinda, Nitta, and Lee. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–3 of the ’843 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We find that the underlying supporting evidence upon which Mr. Credelle relies is insufficient to support the assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the recitation of “scan line” in original claim 1 to be a typographical error, and that what was meant instead was “data line.” See 37 CFR §§ 42.1(d), 42.65(a). Merely directing attention to a conventional LCD arrangement that shows data voltages applied to data lines, as opposed to scan lines, is insufficient to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claimed invention also to convey necessarily this arrangement. Here, for instance, we would want to know whether the claim 1 phrase is unable to be construed in any other way than as the proposed corrected way. In other words, Petitioner’s evidence of showing a conventional LCD arrangement does not appear to us to be particularly relevant in informing us of whether LCD arrangements must necessarily be configured in such a manner or they will not function to drive an LCD display, for example. Even Petitioner’s declarant opines that the “conventional” arrangement seen in the O’Mara Textbook is “typical,” (Ex. 1015 ¶ 35), leading us to believe that other, albeit nonconventional arrangements, were possible though not necessarily “typical” at the time of the invention for driving LCD pixels.” slip op. at 6
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,202,843 - PTAB · Apr 20, 2015 · IPR2014-01331 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ericsson’s rehearing request, leaving unchanged its decision not to institute inter partes review because the petition did not adequately show the claimed MAC-layer resource allocator.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a 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, opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,640,248
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.