• Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00825 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 55 or 57.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Our Rules require that a petition for inter partes review identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is 3 Petitioner proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 13; see Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition. For purposes of this Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. “security module” and “target module” The terms “security module” and “target module” both are recited in each challenged claim. Petitioner identifies a dispute between itself and Patent Owner in related district court litigation as to whether those terms require only “functional (not necessarily physically distinct) modules.” Pet. 15. Specifically, Petitioner points to a statement in an infringement claim chart that appears to have been attached as an exhibit to Patent Owner’s complaint in the litigation that the accused device “has at least two modules, a security module (e.g., cryptographic functionality) and a target module (e.g., storage functionality).” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 2). Petitioner states that it “expressly disagrees with Patent Owner’s broad construction of the ‘modules’ language as covering structures that are not physically distinct.” Id. Petitioner contends that the proper construction of “module” “requires a structure that performs as a ‘security’ module and another separate (potentially connected) structure that performs as a ‘target’ (e.g., memory module, second security module, etc.).” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,003,135
• Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00824 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Kingston did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–15, 23–28, and 36–39 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–15, 23–28, and 36–39 of the ’802 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “A claim limitation using the phrase “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.2 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process, wherein we first identify the claimed function and then determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. at 1351; Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113. This analysis applies similarly under both the broadest reasonable construction and district court-type claim construction standards. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (affirming application of § 112 ¶ 6 in district court litigation); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011)” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193). slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193). slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,088,802
• Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,311,582
• Alstom Grid LLC v. Dominion Resources, Inc. And Virginia Electric And Power CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00504 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review of claims 1‒3, 5‒10, 12, 13, and 15‒20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,437,883 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’883 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Dominion Resources, Inc. and Virginia Electric and Power Company (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of all the challenged claims. We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Deaver fails to disclose “a signal reporting what was sensed by a sensor that is not included in the subset.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒15. We agree with Patent Owner. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses “alerts” that are transmitted when the minimum and maximum voltage thresholds are exceeded. Prelim. Resp. 14‒15; see Pet. 23. However, the CPVMs transmitting the alerts are monitors at each customer premises that are “selected by an electric utility company as a desired point within the power distribution system [] that will be voltage monitored.” Ex. 1004, 4:1‒3. As such, the CPVMs are all in the subset of sensors being monitored, and none of CPVMs are “not included in the subset.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors that is not included in the subset is further configured to send a respective reporting signal.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner generally states that Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, and Bell are analogous to the ’883 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor, dealing with power distribution systems and power management in power distribution systems, and metering technology. Pet. 16. Petitioner goes on to characterize each of the references in this field of endeavor. Id. at 16‒17. Although a determination that the cited prior art is analogous to the ’883 patent provides insight into the scope and content of the prior art to be examined, such a determination is, by itself, insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner must set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness, and must provide a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements disclosed by each of the references. Here, Petitioner has failed to provide such a reasoning.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine that there is no need to construe expressly any of the claim terms at this time. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree as to the construction of the term “energy delivery parameter,” we need not construe this term because it is not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,437,883
• Alstom Grid LLC v. Dominion Resources, Inc. And Virginia Electric And Power CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00503 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 7–13, 15, 16, and 18–34 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We determine that there is no need to construe expressly any of the claim terms at this time. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree as to the construction of the term “energy delivery parameter,” we need not construe this term because it is not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Deaver fails to disclose “a signal reporting what was sensed by a sensor that is not included in the subset.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒16. We agree with Patent Owner. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses “alerts” that are transmitted when the minimum and maximum voltage thresholds are exceeded. Prelim. Resp. 14‒16; see Pet. 22. However, the CPVMs transmitting the alerts are monitors at each customer premises that are “selected by an electric utility company as a desired point within the power distribution system [] that will be voltage monitored.” Ex. 1004, 4:1‒3. As such, the CPVMs are all in the subset of sensors being monitored, and none of the CPVMS are “not included in the subset.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors that is not included in the subset is further configured to send a respective reporting signal.” Patent Owner further argues that Deaver fails to disclose “add[ing] to the subset the at least one other sensor that sent the respective reporting signal,” as recited by independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 8‒14. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses voltage adjustment instructions based on the reported measurement data, and “because any number of customer premises may be selected for voltage monitoring, the reporting meter could be added to the monitored subset.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:45‒60, 5:47‒62, 6:46‒51; Ex. 1001, 38‒42). However, as argued by Patent Owner, Deaver is silent as to adding to the subset of CPVMs being monitored. See Prelim. Resp. 9. At best, Petitioner’s argument that any number of customer premises may be selected, and meters could be added to the subset is an argument towards the obviousness of this limitation, not anticipation, as challenged by Petitioner. See Pet. 23. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “wherein the voltage controller is further configured to add to the subset the at least one other sensor in response to receiving the reporting,” as recited by independent claim 1.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner generally states that Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, and Bell are analogous to the ’510 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor, dealing with power distribution systems and power management in power distribution systems, and metering technology. Pet. 14. Petitioner goes on to characterize each of the references in this field of endeavor. Id. at 14‒15. Although a determination that the cited prior art is analogous to the ’510 patent provides insight into the scope and content of the prior art to be examined, such a determination is, by itself, insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner must set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness, and must provide a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements disclosed by each of the references. Here, Petitioner has failed to provide such a reasoning. We further agree with Patent Owner that testimony from Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration should not be incorporated in to the Petition. See Prelim. Resp. 31‒33. The Petition itself does not address a rationale to combine Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, Bell, Keefe, and ANSI C84.1-2006, and further does not direct us to discussion in Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration for a rationale to combine. At best, Dr. Kezunovic asserts that “DMS, smart meters, and substations are well-known prior art elements, whereby their combination yields predictable results.” Ex. 1001, 95; see Ex. 1001, 176, 238, 250. However, Dr. Kezunovic does not provide any explanation as to why the combination of “DMS, smart meters, and substations” would yield predictable results. Accordingly, even if we were to incorporate Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration in to the Petition, which we do not, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has set forth articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness. As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood in prevailing in its obviousness challenges.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,577,510
• Toyota Motor Corporation v. Signal IP, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,714,927
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 17, 2016 · IPR2016-00119 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–26 because Martinez-Guerra did not teach or suggest the claimed command action value in each parse-tree element.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “value” has an ordinary meaning in the context of the invention. When a claim term “does not have an ordinary meaning, and its meaning is not clear from a plain reading of the claim, we turn to the remaining intrinsic evidence, including the written description, to aid in our construction of that term.” Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582–83, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Hockerson– Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 955, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1490 (Fed. Cir. 2000).) If the applicants for a patent desire to be their own lexicographer, the purported definition must be set forth in either the specification or prosecution history. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Such a definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Prelim. Resp. 27–28. We find that the error reporting aspect of Martinez- Guerra is not a value used to identify a prescribed command, as required by our claim construction. The error does not indicate a prescribed command. Additionally, the error is not contained in each element of the parse tree; rather, it is only at the particular branch of the tree that causes an error.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “To the extent that Petitioner relies on a sequence in which an error occurs and then a correct translation is made, as shown on page 19 of the 15 Petition, that sequence is not described in the Specification and appears only in the Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony, without citation to the record, at paragraphs 38 and 39. We give such testimony little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). It is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to the testimony offered by a declarant. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Thus, Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence that in the case in which an error occurs there is a command action value at each element of the parse tree.” slip op. at 15

  Claim constructioncites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,047,526
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2016 · IPR2016-00018 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Arista did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 6–9, 12, 13, and 17–20 were unpatentable over Chau or Chau and Wils.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 12, 13, and 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,211 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’211 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Cisco Systems, 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, 2, 6–9, 12, 13, and 17–20 of the ’211 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s only apparent contention for Chau’s disclosure that the first and second LANs are both usable for simultaneous transmission “subsequent to” the aggregation of LANs, is that “the simultaneous transmission occurs as a result of the grouping of the first LAN (channel C2) and second LAN (channel C1).” Pet. 19–20, citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 54. The Lin declaration is similarly worded, and like the Petition, is silent as to whether Chau’s alleged simultaneous transmission occurs “subsequent to,” i.e., after the aggregation of LANs. Petitioner’s argument of simultaneous transmission occurring “as a result of” alleged aggregation of LANs is unavailing, because “subsequent to” means, “after,” not “as a result of.” In fact, in the related ’975 IPR, we expressly rejected the Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “as a result of” for “subsequent to.” See Section II.A. Neither the Petition nor the Lin declaration (Ex. 1014) cite any evidence of simultaneous transmission occurring “after” aggregation of LANs in Chau. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s showing demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to claim 1 being anticipated by Chau.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “In addition, as we determined in the ’975 IPR, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of “subsequent to” is its ordinary and customary meaning, namely, “after.” See Case IPR2015-00975, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2015) (declining to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “as a result of” for “subsequent to”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner’s only apparent contention for Chau’s disclosure that the first and second LANs are both usable for simultaneous transmission “subsequent to” the aggregation of LANs, is that “the simultaneous transmission occurs as a result of the grouping of the first LAN (channel C2) and second LAN (channel C1).” Pet. 19–20, citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 54. The Lin declaration is similarly worded, and like the Petition, is silent as to whether Chau’s alleged simultaneous transmission occurs “subsequent to,” i.e., after the aggregation of LANs. Petitioner’s argument of simultaneous transmission occurring “as a result of” alleged aggregation of LANs is unavailing, because “subsequent to” means, “after,” not “as a result of.” In fact, in the related ’975 IPR, we expressly rejected the Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “as a result of” for “subsequent to.” See Section II.A. Neither the Petition nor the Lin declaration (Ex. 1014) cite any evidence of simultaneous transmission occurring “after” aggregation of LANs in Chau. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s showing demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to claim 1 being anticipated by Chau.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,211
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 29, 2016 · IPR2015-00973 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and again denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Hendel disclosed the claimed access result.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “being forwarded (restriction) or that an output port is selected and altered. Rather, these citations generally state that priority can be given to certain packets and quality of service can be applied to layer 2 routing. Thus, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s citation to quality of service in general discloses “generating an access result in response to said at least one selected match.”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “rehearing, we determine that the phrase “modifications on the intended destination address to which a packet is to be transmitted” introduces uncertainly into the construction.4 The construction in the Decision appears to conflate the “destination” of a packet with the output interface to which a packet is directed. The Specification does not describe, however, modifying the “destination” of the packet; the only “modification” on how the packet is routed specifically described in the Specification is when “the access control element 120 . . . [alters] the output interface, which was selected by the routing element 110, to another selected output interface.” Ex. 1001, 6:13– 4 Petitioner does not seek rehearing of the claim construction (Reh’g Req. 4, n. 1) but our analysis requires that we revisit the claim construction determination from the Decision. 16; Reh’g Req. 4–5. Thus, we modify our construction of “access control” to mean only restrictions on the transmission of a packet or alteration of a selected output interface for the packet.” slip op. at 4

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Additionally, Petitioner cites to its Declarant Dr. Chao. Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Petitioner’s Declarant states without citation that “a switch may modify the forwarding decision to account for network policies such as quality of service determinations. That is, a packet may be destined for a certain MAC address and port on the switch, but the switch may determine that the packet can be transmitted more reliably through another port, and so it will change the destination port for that packet.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 31. Petitioner’s Declarant’s testimony is conclusory and unsupported by evidence, and, therefore, we give that testimony no weight.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2016 · CBM2015-00171 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any existing claim qualified as a covered business method patent under AIA § 18(d)(1).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent.” The AIA defines “covered business method patent” as “a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).” slip op. at 6

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) of claims 1–10. Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2002). Thus, the question is whether we should consider now-statutorily disclaimed claims 1–10 in determining whether or not the ’177 patent is a covered business method patent for the purposes of instituting a covered business method patent review. We determine that we should not. 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) is the rule promulgated by the Office for creating a procedure for a patentee to avail itself of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 253. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1490. Our reviewing court has held that a patent with a statutory disclaimer is to be treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed. See Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”). Accordingly, for the purposes of whether or not to institute a covered business method patent review, we treat claims 1–10 as never having existed. See Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-00019 slip op. at 14– 15 (PTAB May 19, 2014) (Paper 11); but see J.P. Morgan Chase v. Intellectual Ventures, Case CBM2014-00157 slip op. at 12–15 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2016) (Paper 40) (although the panel states that “petitioner’s standing to file a petition for covered business method patent review is evaluated based on the time the petition was filed,” in this proceeding, Patent Owner” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1328 (2015) (affirming use of the broadest reasonable construction standard in a covered business method patent review). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177

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.