• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 13, 2021 · IPR2019-01595 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution on claims 1 and 2, finding no abuse of discretion on priority entitlement or motivation to combine Darbee and Golender.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and the challenging party “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in a 1 Petitioner also filed a request for the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) to review the Decision (Paper 13 (Notification of Receipt of POP Request)), which the POP denied (Paper 14 (Order)). paper of record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Because Petitioner seeks rehearing of our Decision denying institution of trial based on the Petition, it must show an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.”). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence that could have been presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “issue upon which the priority determination turns—what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art—because Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony on that issue. And we did not overlook or misapprehend any testimony of Dr. Medvidovic regarding what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art because we could not have overlooked or misapprehended any testimony that was not presented in the Medvidovic Declaration. As discussed above, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony based on what is expressly disclosed in or necessarily follows from the disclosures of the priority applications was insufficient because Dr. Medvidovic did not explain adequately why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bear, provided detailed testimony and explanations regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the priority applications to describe the subject matter recited in the User Action Limitation (see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 111–122, 126–127), Dr. Medvidovic did not provide adequate testimony or explanations to the contrary on the issue (see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “misapprehend or overlook 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). The mere fact that Dr. Medvidovic provided testimony different from the testimony of Mr. Bear does not by itself raise a genuine issue of material fact. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily raise a genuine issue of material fact.”). As the Request acknowledges, Dr. Medvidovic in his Declaration (Ex. 1010, “Medvidovic Declaration”) testified that the subject matter of the User Action Limitation is “neither expressly disclosed [in] nor necessarily follows from” the descriptions in the priority applications about event journal data. Req. 3 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 57–62). As discussed above, however, the test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351. The record shows that Dr. Medvidovic did not provide any testimony in his Declaration as to what the disclosures in the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 53–63. Nor did Dr. Medvidovic explain adequately in his Declaration why the disclosures in the priority applications would not reasonably have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter of the User Action Limitation. See id.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, however, “less education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 64–67). As stated in the Bear Declaration, Mr. Bear’s work experience includes at least 9 years of computer software programming using a variety of coding languages, such as BASIC, Pascal, C, C++, and 68000 Assembly Language. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–12. Thus, Mr. Bear is qualified to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed in the Decision, although we did not find the parties’ proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art to be materially different, to the extent the testimony from the parties’ declarants on the level of ordinary skill in the art raised a genuine issue of material fact, we adopted and applied Petitioner’s definition for purposes of the Decision, being mindful of the rule that “a genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” Dec. 9 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)). Thus, the record shows that, under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in consideration of § 42.108(c), the Decision appropriately credited Mr. Bear’s testimony on what the priority applications reasonably would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,015,446
• Corning Incorporated v. Panduit Corp.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00775 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Rehearing

  Denied Corning’s rehearing request; the Board maintained its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were obvious on any asserted ground.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “institute an inter partes review, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2018). In pertinent part, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) states: 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. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Request for Rehearing (Paper 16, “Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision denying institution of an inter partes review (Paper 15, “Decision” or “Dec.”) of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,351,027 B2 (“the ’027 patent,” Ex. 1001). In the Decision, we found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the combined teachings of the prior art would have rendered obvious the limitation of claim 1 that requires “choosing for use in a communications network those optical fibers in which the result of subtracting the peak delay at the first radius from the peak delay at the second radius is a negative number” (“the choosing step”). Dec. 23–25, 29–30, 32. We, thus, determined that Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–4 of the ’027 patent would have been obvious based on any asserted ground. Id. at 25–26, 30–33.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot reached

    “negative slopes. See Ex. 1006, Figs. 2, 3. Petitioner failed to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, without using the ’027 patent as a template, would have elected to consider only some selected data in Abbott, while ignoring other data, or would have elected to choose an optical fiber based on such consideration. See Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.” (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983))); see also Dec. 25 (concluding that Petitioner’s argument appears to be the product of hindsight). Instead, Petitioner merely cited to the conclusory opinion of its expert declarant. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 164).” slip op. at 4

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

    “legal error by construing claim 1” of the ’027 patent “as requiring the slope to always be negative.” Reh’g Req. 4, 6–8. We made no such construction. In fact, we determined that no claim term required express construction, expressly or implicitly. Dec. 7. In arguing that we committed legal error, Petitioner points to statements in Patent Owner’s briefing, see Reh’g Req. 6– 9, but does not identify anything in our Decision that indicates we construed the choosing step of claim 1 as requiring that the DMD slope should always be negative. Consequently, Petitioner’s assertion of legal error is unsupported.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,351,027
• Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00494 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because the Petition did not explain how the prior-art structures were the same as or equivalent to the claimed structures.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

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

    “focuses on the functional language of these claim limitations and fails to explain how the structures of Maresh-I and Stearns are the same as, or equivalent to, those identified in the ’219 patent. Dec. 15–16. For example, Petitioner’s discussion of Maresh-I equates the claimed “first means” and “second means” with Maresh-I’s “radially displaced pins of cranks 760,” but fails to make any argument explaining how these are the same or equivalent structures. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also points to paragraphs 37 and 90 of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration where he testifies that Maresh-I’s radially displaced pins are crank arms and that a connection between rollers 2023 and cranks 2020 is the crank arm in Stearns. Req. Reh’g 5–6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37), 6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 90). There is no question that Mr. Ganaja’s testimony in these paragraphs addresses the issues that we found lacking in the Petition. The problem for Petitioner, however, is that the Petition itself did not include these arguments equating the structures as Mr. Ganaja did. Citing to these paragraphs of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration without providing any explanation of the significance thereof in the Petition itself is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). See also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”).” slip op. at 4

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “focuses on the functional language of these claim limitations and fails to explain how the structures of Maresh-I and Stearns are the same as, or equivalent to, those identified in the ’219 patent. Dec. 15–16. For example, Petitioner’s discussion of Maresh-I equates the claimed “first means” and “second means” with Maresh-I’s “radially displaced pins of cranks 760,” but fails to make any argument explaining how these are the same or equivalent structures. See Pet. 13–14. Petitioner also points to paragraphs 37 and 90 of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration where he testifies that Maresh-I’s radially displaced pins are crank arms and that a connection between rollers 2023 and cranks 2020 is the crank arm in Stearns. Req. Reh’g 5–6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37), 6 (discussing Ex. 1006 ¶ 90). There is no question that Mr. Ganaja’s testimony in these paragraphs addresses the issues that we found lacking in the Petition. The problem for Petitioner, however, is that the Petition itself did not include these arguments equating the structures as Mr. Ganaja did. Citing to these paragraphs of Mr. Ganaja’s declaration without providing any explanation of the significance thereof in the Petition itself is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). See also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook discussion in the Petition regarding these structures.” slip op. at 4

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “In particular, we first construed “first means” and “second means” as invoking § 112, ¶ 6, as proposed by Petitioner and Patent Owner. Dec. 9. Second, we found that even if we accepted Petitioner’s identification of the alleged corresponding structure, material, or acts, Petitioner’s analysis failed to show that the prior art structures were the same or equivalent. Id. at 15– 16 (discussing Maresh-I and Stearns). Rather, Petitioner’s analysis focused entirely on the functional language of these claim elements without addressing the corresponding structure. Id.” slip op. at 2

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,632,219
• Nokia Solutions And Networks US LLC / Nokia Solutions And Networks OY v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00592 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing

  Denied Nokia’s rehearing request; the Board found no abuse of discretion in denying institution on the asserted obviousness grounds against claims 1–3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 19.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “overlooks significant evidence” that Petitioner presented. Req. Reh’g 5. Petitioner first argues that it showed there is an explicit teaching to combine the Tdoc list with TS 23.125. Id. at 6–8. In support of that argument, Petitioner identifies evidence cited in the Petition, which Petitioner now contends was proffered in support of demonstrating a motivation to combine the Tdoc list with TS 23.125. Id. Petitioner has not identified, however, any matters that we have misapprehended or overlooked. We considered Petitioner’s evidence and argument. In our Decision, we determined that Petitioner had not sufficiently shown a rationale to combine the references in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Inst. Dec. 18–20. It is insufficient to show that a skilled artisan would have combined the references. Id. Petitioner had the burden of also demonstrating that a skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed invention, namely a CRF providing a TPF with address information of a charging system, which we found Petitioner had not shown. Id.” slip op. at 4

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

    “argument that a skilled artisan would have known that the CRF could have provided the address information of a charging system to the TPF. Inst. Dec. 17–18. We found that Petitioner did not explain sufficiently, however, the rationale for why a skilled artisan would have implemented a CRF providing a TPF with address information of a charging system, rather than implementing either a User Equipment (UE) providing a TPF with the address information or a TPF that is already preconfigured with the address information, in view of the teachings of TS 23.125 and the Tdoc list. Id. at 18–20.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner

    “be provided only by a CRF, which Petitioner did not show, we note that the address information of a charging system could be preconfigured in the TPF and then added to a charging rule at the TPF once the rule has already been provided to the TPF. See Pet. 54 (directing us to expert testimony that “[t]he address information could either be pre-configured in the TPF or provided by another node”) (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 157). That scenario does not require a CRF providing a TPF with the address information of a charging system, as claimed.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,798,575
• Duodecad It Services Luxembourg S.à.R.L. / Friendfinder Networks Inc. et al. v. Wag Acquisition, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 4, 2017 · IPR2015-01035 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution for claims 1–18, finding the petition did not persuasively show Ground 3’s references taught the constant-fill-rate limitation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “construction and construed “playback rate” (as recited in claims 1, 3, 8, 9, and 14) as “a rate at which the data is encoded for playback to a user.” Dec. 6–7 (citing Paper 2 (“Pet.”) 12; Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”) 17). We also declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for “at about playback rate” as indefinite as it could represent “any rate” (Pet. 12). Dec. 7. We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction that “at about playback rate” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 14, should be construed as “at approximately the rate at which the media will be played out.” Dec. 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. 16–18; Ex. 1001, 3:40–42, 4:33–35, 4:47–50, 5:37–40).” slip op. at 3

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

    “indefinite, contends, in the alternative, that “the Board erred in giving a special meaning to ‘about’ or ‘approximately’ in the context of the playback rate as being related to variations that may arise as a result of variable encoding. Petitioners submit that ‘about’ should be ‘approximately’ without imparting such special meaning to the term.” Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Duraflame, Inc. v. Hearthmark, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21229, *23 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2013)). We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments that the term “about” in the claim phrase “about playback rate” requires further construction. We note that Petitioner’s rehearing request argument with respect to Chen, Chen FH, Carmel, and ISO-11172 teaching that “the media data elements is sent at a rate that matches the constant fill rate of a server buffer” does not depend on the revised construction of either “playback rate” or the construction of “about” in the claim phrase “about playback rate.” Thus, for purposes of this rehearing decision, we do not further construe “about playback rate”” slip op. at 4

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

    “Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 63) in arguing that the Board erred in finding that Chen and the Chen FH did not “‘teach or suggest that the server buffer in Chen fills at a constant rate that matches the rate of data coming out of the buffer’” as recited in challenged claims. Reh’g Req. 7–9 (quoting Dec. 15.). The Petition, however, makes no reference to “the case where the stream buffer holds one frame of data” and argues only that in Normal mode the Chen server buffer empties at about playback rate to avoid overflow and underflow conditions. Pet. 19; see also Pet. 31 (citing claim 42 of Chen). In addition, neither the Petition nor Dr. Polish’s declaration cited therein discusses the case where one frame of data is in the Chen stream buffer and subsequently leaves the stream buffer, i.e., that one and only one frame of data is loaded into the stream buffer. Compare Req. Reh’g 9 with Pet. 19, 31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63. The Board did not misapprehend or overlook arguments that were not presented. In addition, Petitioner’s arguments based on the size of the server buffer in Chen, as presented in the Petition, failed to persuasively show that the server buffer in Chen fills at a constant rate that matches the rate of data coming out of the buffer or that rate into its buffer is constant. Petitioner’s arguments that a one frame buffer “necessarily” shows that one frame is loaded into the Chen buffer is conclusory and not persuasive to the extent it was argued in the Petition.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,185,611
• Robert Bosch LLC / Daimler AG v. Orbital Australia Pty LimitedRehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01249 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of the institution denial, finding no error in its conclusion that Petitioner had not shown claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 14, and 15 unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” 1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,080,064, iss. Jan. 14, 1992 (Ex. 1004, “Buslepp”). 2 U.S. Pat. No. 5,078,109, iss. Jan. 7, 1992 (Ex. 1005, “Yoshida”). PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must identify the place in the record where it previously addressed each matter it submits for review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “A. Claim Construction Petitioner does not dispute our construction of the “initial position” recited in the claims. See Req. Reh’g 5–8. Petitioner, however, alleges that we incorrectly characterized their construction of that limitation. Id. at 5–6. We are not persuaded that we incorrectly characterized the construction set forth in the Petition. Notwithstanding that determination, Petitioner’s arguments on this issue are unpersuasive because we evaluated their challenges based on our construction of the “initial position” recited in the claims, which, as noted above, Petitioner does not dispute.” slip op. at 3

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

    “identification of Buslepp’s disclosure of a feed-forward determination in the form of the BASE VALUE.” Req. Reh’g 9 (citing Pet. 1, 12). This is an inaccurate characterization of our Decision. Our Decision specifically notes Petitioner’s reliance on Buslepp’s “BASE VALUE” as corresponding to the claimed initial position (Dec. 9–10), and Petitioner cites to this portion of our Decision in its Request (Req. Reh’g 11). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he only deficiency the Board notes with Buslepp, based on Patent Owner’s misleading statements, is that the THROTTLE POSITION (a different variable from the BASE VALUE) is determined by a feedback control loop.” Id. (citing Dec. 10). Ultimately, our Decision was based on Petitioner’s failure to explain sufficiently how Buslepp’s “BASE VALUE” discloses the claimed “initial position.” See Dec. 10. Petitioner essentially disagrees with our Decision, which is not a proper basis for requesting rehearing. As noted above, there is no dispute regarding the proper construction of the “initial position,” and we considered the arguments asserted in the Petition identifying Buslepp’s “BASE VALUE” as corresponding to the claimed “initial position.” Furthermore, as Petitioner acknowledges (Req. Reh’g 11), our Decision explicitly acknowledged that Buslepp’s “BASE VALUE” is an open-loop determination. See Dec. 10. The Petition failed to establish that Buslepp discloses that the BASE VALUE is the initial position for its throttle valve, rather than merely a value used to determine a position for the throttle valve. Claim 1 not only requires “determining an initial position of said throttle means,” but also “moving the throttle means to said initial position.”” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,606,951
• Servicenow, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · IPR2015-00716 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied ServiceNow’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for all challenged claims because the evidence did not show a reasonable likelihood that the Collaborate References were publicly accessible printed publications.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “(emphasis added). In addition, “[e]vidence not already of record at the time of the decision will not be admitted [with a request for rehearing] absent a showing of good cause.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (emphasis added). When reconsidering a Decision on Institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner fails to make the critical link between the alleged identification of the Collaborate References on the “download page” and the exhibits relied upon in support of its asserted grounds. Despite Petitioner’s arguments and assertion that this “page” was publicly accessible “by no later than August 29, 2001,” Petitioner fails to demonstrate Exhibits 1004–1006, which Petitioner relies upon in support of each of the asserted grounds, were publicly accessible through the webpages included in Exhibit A to the Butler Affidavit more than one year prior to May 14, 2003. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 205.” slip op. at 4

  • ExcludeDecided for petitioner

    “of the copyright notices on Exhibits 1004–1006 in our Decision on Institution. We did not “sustain” Patent Owner’s evidentiary objection; Petitioner’s evidence was neither excluded from the record nor denied consideration. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. In fact, as our Decision on Institution makes clear, the evidence of the copyright notices was considered fully, along with the other evidence presented by the parties, in reaching our determination on the public accessibility of Exhibits 1004– 1006. See Dec. 15–17. Specifically, on this record, we were not persuaded that the copyright notices are entitled to any greater weight than that afforded to hearsay in determining public accessibility. Id. at 17.” slip op. at 9

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,945,860
• Informatica Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationRehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 6, 2015 · CBM2015-00010 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied both rehearing requests, leaving institution and denial of the identified claims and grounds unchanged after finding no abuse of discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing a decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In its Request for Rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matter that party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked” and (2) identify the place where each matter was previously addressed. Id.” slip op. at 3

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

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[T]he prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “[I]t is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 1371. “[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Id. Petitioner first quotes a passage from Denning that describes the columns of the access matrix as corresponding to objects which are controlled by the access matrix. See Ex. 1006, 192. Petitioner then quotes a disparate portion of Denning that describes a relational database system that consists of n-tuples having n attributes or columns, with respect to authorization lists, which are a different type of access control. See id. at 213. Neither of these quoted passages links the objects of the access matrix model to the columns of the relational database system, described in connection with the authorization lists, or provides any other adequate explanation as to how Denning discloses that the object of the access matrix model “corresponds” to the columns of the relational database system. In the Petition, Petitioner and its declarant also state that Denning discloses that the access matrix is applicable to database systems. Pet. 3; Ex. 1010 ¶ 54 (citing Ex. 1006, 192). However, this also does not describe the objects of the access matrix model as columns of the relational database system. slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “LLC. See Decision 9–10. As we stated in our Decision, a party may not petition for post-grant review if it has filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the petition is filed. 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.201(a); see Securebuy, LLC, CBM2014-00035, (PTAB Apr. 25, 2014) (Paper 12, precedential) (explaining that 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) applies to covered business method patent review proceedings). In this case, however, Petitioner’s filing of a civil action before filing the Petition did not trigger the statutory bar because the civil action was dismissed without prejudice. See id. Dismissal without prejudice does not trigger the statutory bar. See Decision 9 (citing Cyanotech Corp. v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00401, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2013) (Paper 17) (“Excluding an action that de jure never existed from the scope of § 315(a)(1) is consistent with both relevant case law and legislative history.”); Callidus Software, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00052, slip op. at 5–7 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2014) (Paper 21).); “The dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought. Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014)(Paper 166) (citing Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). In SecureBuy, LLC, the Board determined the 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) applied to covered business method review proceedings, but made no determination as to whether or not a dismissal without prejudice triggered the statutory bar. See SecureBuy, LLC, CBM2014-00035 (PTAB April 25, 2014)( Paper 12).” slip op. at 4

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “[T]he prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “[I]t is not enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Id. at 1371. “[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Id. Petitioner first quotes a passage from Denning that describes the columns of the access matrix as corresponding to objects which are controlled by the access matrix. See Ex. 1006, 192. Petitioner then quotes a disparate portion of Denning that describes a relational database system that consists of n-tuples having n attributes or columns, with respect to authorization lists, which are a different type of access control. See id. at 213. Neither of these quoted passages links the objects of the access matrix model to the columns of the relational database system, described in connection with the authorization lists, or provides any other adequate explanation as to how Denning discloses that the object of the access matrix model “corresponds” to the columns of the relational database system. In the Petition, Petitioner and its declarant also state that Denning discloses that the access matrix is applicable to database systems. Pet. 3; Ex. 1010 ¶ 54 (citing Ex. 1006, 192). However, this also does not describe the objects of the access matrix model as columns of the relational database system. Petitioner alternatively argues that Denning’s objects at the top of the columns of the access matrix model are associated with a data category, when “data category” is given the broadest reasonable construction adopted in the Decision. Pet. Req. 3, 9. Petitioner states: “[f]or example, M1 refers to a division of data that shares a common attribute of being stored in memory segment M1.” Id. Petitioner, however, does not identify where this argument was raised in the first instance in the Petition, and we can find no such argument in the Petition. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended an argument that was not raised in the Petition. We, thus, are not persuaded by Petitioner that we abused our discretion in denying institution of covered business method patent review of claims 15, 31, 33, and 47 on the ground of obviousness over Denning. slip op. at 14

  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,402,281

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.