- Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 18, 2020 · PGR2020-00041 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Rehearing
The Board denied Supercell’s rehearing request, upholding denial of institution based on the Fintiv factors and the risk of duplicated efforts and inconsistent results.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for patent owner
“this factor or that we misapprehended the trial date. At the time of our Decision, trial was scheduled in the parallel proceeding for December 7, 2020, approximately nine months before our final written decision would have been due, if we were to institute trial. Dec. 10–11. As such, this gap in timing created a cognizable risk of inconsistent results and duplication of efforts, which weighed toward denying institution. Id. at 7, 11. Additionally, the Decision notes that some uncertainty exists regarding trial dates, as Petitioner again argues in its Request. Id. at 11; Req. Reh’g 4. However, the Decision goes on to determine that even if trial in the parallel proceeding was delayed by two months, consistent with Petitioner’s prior requested delay, the proximity of the trial date to our final written decision would still favor denying institution. Dec. 12 (citing Ex. 2002, 2). As such, Petitioner has not shown that the Board misapprehended the trial date.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“contentions. In our Decision, we relied in part upon Dr. Claypool’s testimony from related litigation between the parties in determining that Petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Mastermind was” slip op. at 8
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner was provided an opportunity to respond to this evidence to address any “time-based distinctions in Dr. Claypool’s testimony,” however, Petitioner declined to address this testimony in its Preliminary Reply, despite having the opportunity to do so. Prelim. Reply 5–7. We decline to consider now, on rehearing, arguments that Petitioner failed to make in its pre-institution papers. It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that Mastermind was publicly accessible. As we stated in our Decision, this prior testimony casts serious doubt on Petitioner’s ability to satisfy that burden. Dec. 25. We also decline to consider new testimonial evidence submitted on rehearing on this issue, as Petitioner does not show good cause for admitting this new evidence. See Huawei Device Co. v. Optics Cellular Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00816, Paper 19 (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019) (precedential) (showing of “good cause” required prior to filing a rehearing request or in the request itself for new exhibits to be admitted). We could not have misapprehended or overlooked evidence and arguments that were not made before our Decision.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,307,677 - Adobe Systems Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 7, 2018 · IPR2018-00418 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Adobe’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied on all three § 103 grounds because Petitioner did not show Venkataramu was a publicly accessible printed publication.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“We are not persuaded that the textbook including a citation to Venkataramu was a research aid that is sufficient, without further explanation, to establish the public accessibility of Venkataramu prior to the earliest possible effective filing date for the ’555 patent, namely, March 21, 2010. Although a research aid may establish the public accessibility of a potentially invalidating reference, the research aid itself must have been publicly accessible in order to do so. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1350 (agreeing with the Board, where it “acknowledged that the published article was publicly accessible and that it related to the same research presented in [the potentially invalidating reference]” but “nevertheless found the article insufficient because it did not include any citation to [the potentially invalidating reference]”). Here, Petitioner has not adequately shown that the textbook including a citation to Venkataramu was publicly accessible before March 21, 2010.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“accessibility, we note that the Federal Circuit in Blue Calypso, which was decided after these Board decisions, explains that “[j]ust as indexing plays a significant role in evaluating whether a reference in a library is publicly accessible, . . . indexing, ‘[w]hether . . . through search engines or otherwise,’ is also an important question for determining if a reference stored on a given webpage in cyberspace is publicly accessible.” 815 F.3d at 1349 (internal citations omitted). The Federal Circuit further explains that the “absence of evidence demonstrating that the website at which the article was located was indexed and thereby findable by an internet search engine” can be overcome, however, by a showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been independently aware of the [website] as a prominent forum for discussing [the pertinent] technologies.” Id.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that the textbook including a citation to Venkataramu was a research aid that is sufficient, without further explanation, to establish the public accessibility of Venkataramu prior to the earliest possible effective filing date for the ’555 patent, namely, March 21, 2010. Although a research aid may establish the public accessibility of a potentially invalidating reference, the research aid itself must have been publicly accessible in order to do so. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1350 (agreeing with the Board, where it “acknowledged that the published article was publicly accessible and that it related to the same research presented in [the potentially invalidating reference]” but “nevertheless found the article insufficient because it did not include any citation to [the potentially invalidating reference]”). Here, Petitioner has not adequately shown that the textbook including a citation to Venkataramu was publicly accessible before March 21, 2010.” slip op. at 12
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“1016, 2). Relying on FanDuel, Inc. v. CG Tech. Dev., LLC, Case IPR2017- 00902, slip op. at 15 (PTAB Oct. 18, 2017) (Paper 14), Petitioner contends that such evidence is “separate evidence of the public dissemination and availability of [the textbook].” Req. Reh’g 6. This is a new argument, which does not address what we overlooked or misapprehended in our Institution Decision. Petitioner does not indicate where in the Petition or Ms. Manek’s Declaration this argument was raised. In any event, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s new argument. The panel in FanDuel explained that “[t]he statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to mean that before the critical date the reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art; dissemination and public accessibility are the keys to the legal determination whether a prior art reference was ‘published.’” FanDuel, slip op. at 14 (emphasis added). Here, evidence that the textbook was published in the United States and that unauthorized copying of the textbook was prohibited does not establish when the textbook became publicly accessible.” slip op. at 14
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,402,555 - Adobe Systems Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 7, 2018 · IPR2018-00419 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Adobe’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution because the petition did not sufficiently show Venkataramu was publicly accessible before the patent’s earliest possible effective filing date.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a 2 Ameerally, U.S. Publ’n No. 2006/0212401 A1, published Sept. 21, 2006 (Ex. 1004). 3 Gautier, U.S. Publ’n No. 2005/0021478 A1, published Jan. 27, 2005 (Ex. 1005). 4 Dan Frakes, First Look: iTunes Digital Copy, Macworld, http://www.macworld.com/article/131751/2008/01/digitalcopy.html, last visited Jan. 10, 2017 (Ex. 1006). 5 Zweig, U.S. Publ’n No. 2007/0233606 A1, published Oct. 4, 2007 (Ex. 1008). 6 Suitts, U.S. Publ’n No. 2008/0040379 A1, published Feb. 14, 2008 (Ex. 1009). 7 Kondrk, U.S. Publ’n No. 2004/0254883 A1, published Dec. 16, 2004 (Ex. 1010). clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The burden of showing that a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must (1) “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked,” and (2) identify the place “where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768. We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“accessibility, we note that the Federal Circuit in Blue Calypso, which was decided after these Board decisions, explains that “[j]ust as indexing plays a significant role in evaluating whether a reference in a library is publicly accessible, . . . indexing, ‘[w]hether . . . through search engines or otherwise,’ is also an important question for determining if a reference stored on a given webpage in cyberspace is publicly accessible.” 815 F.3d at 1349 (internal citations omitted). The Federal Circuit further explains that the “absence of evidence demonstrating that the website at which the article was located was indexed and thereby findable by an internet search engine” can be overcome, however, by a showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been independently aware of the website as a prominent forum for discussing [the pertinent] technologies.” Id. In this case, that the Internet Archive electronically archived a copy of Venkataramu does not, by itself, mean that Venkataramu was sufficiently indexed on the San Jose State University (SJSU) website or the Internet Archive. Nor does it reveal anything about the search capabilities of the SJSU website or the Internet Archive, or why one with ordinary skill in the art would have even visited either website to find anything. With respect to the SJSU website, Mr. Christopher Butler does not claim to have personal knowledge of the general practices regarding the university website, or the search capabilities of the website. For example, he does not testify as to the procedures, if any, the university uses to index project reports, or the manner, if at all, in which project reports are indexed (e.g., by author, title, subject). He also does not testify as to the search capabilities of the SJSU website, or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have visited the website to locate Venkataramu. We note Petitioner’s assertion in its Petition that Venkataramu was “indexed as a Masters’ Thesis,” (Pet. 30), which, of course, bears no relationship to the subject of Venkataramu. See In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989). As for the Internet Archive, we note that Mr. Butler testifies that “[v]istors to the Wayback Machine can search archives by URL (i.e., a website address),” (Ex. 1024 ¶ 3), which, similarly, bears no relationship to the subject of Venkataramu. Mr. Butler does not testify as to any other way to locate Venkataramu on the Wayback Machine, or as to why a visitor would have visited the Wayback Machine to locate Venkataramu.” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,533,860 - Adobe Systems Incorporated v. William GreciaInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 21, 2018 · IPR2018-00418 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Venkataramu was a publicly accessible printed publication, defeating every obviousness ground for claims 1–26.
RulingsInstitution decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. To determine a date on which Venkataramu was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the SJSU library’s cataloging and indexing practices, as well as any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Butler offers sufficient evidence that Venkataramu was sufficiently indexed or catalogued at SJSU for access. That the Internet Archive captured and archived a copy of Venkataramu does not mean, by itself, that Venkataramu was sufficiently indexed or catalogued at SJSU. Nor does it reveal anything about the search capabilities of the SJSU library website. Mr. Butler does not claim to have personal knowledge of the general library practices of the SJSU library, or the search capabilities of the SJSU library website. For example, he does not testify as to the procedures, if any, the university uses to index or catalog project reports, or the manner, if at all, in which project reports are indexed or cataloged (e.g., by author, title, subject). He also does not testify as to the search capabilities of the SJSU library website. Further, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Butler introduces any evidence that Venkataramu was actually disseminated to any interested skilled artisans prior to the earliest possible effective filing date for the ’555 patent. Additionally, Petitioner has not explained why making a copy of Venkataramu accessible on the Internet Archive constitutes publication of Venkataramu on the Internet Archive as of October 2, 2008. In that regard, we note that Mr. Butler’s Affidavit does not indicate that the archived files are searchable through a subject matter index or catalog.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Venkataramu was publicly accessible prior to the earliest possible effective filing date for the ’555 patent. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown that Venkataramu qualifies as a printed publication. Because each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds relies on Venkataramu, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that any of claims 1–26 would have been obvious over any of the asserted grounds. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated on the record before us a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’555 patent. V. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 13
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,402,555 - PTAB · Aug 24, 2017 · IPR2017-00936 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over Ginter or Ginter and Stefik.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “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 also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same CPU 654 of Ginter. Prelim. Resp. 17–20. We agree. See Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. U. S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to CPU 654 of Ginter is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that Ginter discloses “one or more conventional general purpose central processing units (‘CPUs’) 654 . . . .” Ex. 1002, 185:21–22 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is plausible that Petitioner intended for one of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “processing circuitry” and another of CPUs 654 to correspond to the recited “microprocessor.” We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that intention with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner impermissibly maps two distinct claim terms, “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor,” to the same processing means 1200 of Stefik. Prelim. Resp. 29–31. We agree. See Unique Concepts, 939 F.2d at 1563 (two distinct claim elements should each be given full effect). Indeed, to determine otherwise would impermissibly read one of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” out of the claim. See Texas Instr., 988 F.2d at 1171 (explaining that claim language cannot be mere surplusage, an express limitation cannot be read out of the claim). Mapping both claim terms to processing means 1200 of Stefik is especially problematic for the “microprocessor” limitation, which reads, in context, “a microprocessor having software programming to control the operation of the processing circuitry” (Claim 1 (emphasis added)). In making our determination, we acknowledge that it is plausible that Petitioner is mapping “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” to processing means 1200 and processor element 1201, respectively, where processor element 1201 is a component of processing means 1200. We are unpersuaded, however, that Petitioner has articulated that mapping with sufficient particularity in the aforementioned portions of the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). Moreover, as each of “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” are recited as performing functions, if anything, it would appear that both “processing circuitry” and “microprocessor” should be mapped to processor element 1201, which would still be deficient for the reasons set forth above concerning processing means 1200. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner maps the ASIC chip of processing means 1200, which appears to be the same as processor element 1201, of Stefik to the recited “microprocessor,” but that an ASIC chip cannot correspond properly to a “microprocessor.” Prelim. Resp. 31. We agree. Patent Owner cites to a webpage that defines ASIC as follows: (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) Pronounced “a-sick.” A chip that is custom designed for a specific application rather than a general-purpose chip such as a microprocessor. The use of ASICs improve performance over general-purpose CPUs, because ASICs are “hardwired” to do a specific job and do not incur the overhead of fetching and interpreting stored instructions. Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2002); see also Dictionary.com Unabridged, Random House, Inc. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/microprocessor (accessed: June 12, 2017) (Ex. 3001) (microprocessor is “an integrated computer circuit that performs all the functions of a CPU”). Based on the above, we find that an ASIC is not a microprocessor. Against this objective evidence, Petitioner only states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would know that an ASIC chip is a microprocessor” (Pet. 35), and provides a citation to paragraph 223 of Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration, the relevant portion of which merely states, similarly, that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an ASIC chip functions would include those of a microprocessor,” without further relevant explanation or analysis. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one of claims 1, 9, 10, and 13–16 is unpatentable as obvious over Ginter and Stefik.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,840,437 - Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technology CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 23, 2016 · PGR2016-00026 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–25 were more likely than not unpatentable for indefiniteness or obviousness over Berardi and Gladfelter.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the ’057 patent “would have been a person having general knowledge about and experience with the manufacture and/or use of hoses and with fluid mechanics and materials science as they relate to hoses and how hoses work generally. The person of ordinary skill has at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertion. On these facts, we determine that Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is credible.” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“’057 patent defines the following relevant claim terms: “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Petitioner does not dispute that these claim terms are defined expressly by the ’057 patent, nor does Petitioner indicate that these claim terms are indefinite. Next, each independent claim recites expressly that the “stretched length” is longer than the “extended length,” which we construed above as “the length the hose or those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure.” Finally, the term “maximum stretched length,” both by the use of the word “maximum” and the express definition set forth in the ’057 patent, indicates that it constitutes an upper bound for the term “stretched length.” Accordingly, through transitive analysis, we determine that the recited term “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” Relative claim terminology is acceptable if one of ordinary skill would have understood what is claimed, in light of the Specification. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“those components extend to when the hose is pressurized with a fluid and no extension forces are applied other than fluid pressure,” and also determined that “stretched length” is a relative length intermediate the explicitly defined terms “extended length” and “maximum stretched length.” When considered in the aggregate, we see that “extended length” is a length of a hose attributable to only fluid pressure, while “stretched length” is a length of a hose attributable to any force other than fluid pressure. Accordingly, a discussion of the prior art must acknowledge the interplay between the length of the hose, fluid pressure, and other forces, in order to meet the aforementioned claim limitation.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 9,182,057 - Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. Ips Group Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00070 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable over Fulcher and Jacobs or Tung.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in proving that claims 1–16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“what portions of Fulcher or Jacobs that Petitioner is relying on as corresponding to the recited “a lower portion and an upper portion.” We have read through Petitioner’s narrative concerning the proffered combination of Fulcher and Jacobs at pages 27–33 of the Petition, and are unable to locate either the word “lower” or “upper.” The portion of the claim chart concerning “a lower portion and an upper portion” reads as follows:” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“references to a 2001 date, because it is a master’s thesis, and no indication has been provided that it is a regular publication, the relevant question is not when Tung was completed, but when Tung was publicly accessible. See SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Specifically, as the ’054 patent has a filing date of no later than December 4, 2006, and as Petitioner asserts that Tung is a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the relevant question is whether Petitioner has shown that Tung was publicly accessible no later than December 4, 2006.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,595,054 - PTAB · Mar 16, 2016 · IPR2015-01922 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Institution
Review of claims 1, 15, and 17 was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Douik anticipates them.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For all of the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that claims 1, 15, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Douik. III.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Although the arguments in the present Petition are similar to those asserted in IPR2014-01309, the present challenge relies upon a reference not relied upon in IPR2014-01309. We are cognizant of the concerns regarding harassment of patent owners by the filing of serial petitions. The instant case, however, involves only a single ground, and Patent Owner has not demonstrated persuasively that the Petition constitutes harassment or is part of a pattern of filing serial petitions against the ’839 patent. Moreover, we are unpersuaded that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 325(d) because we determine that the instant petition relies on a reference that was not asserted in IPR2014-01309, and determine also that the Petition does not present the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments presented in IPR2014-01309. In sum, considering the totality of the circumstances, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–78 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 2016 WL 205946 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification, 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). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For purposes of this decision, we determine that no term of the ’839 patent needs express interpretation.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, Petitioner has not persuaded us sufficiently that Douik contemplates the situation “when a likely solution to the computer problem does not exist,” as recited in claim 15. As described above, in Douik’s reactive mode, for known faults, i.e., faults that have already been experienced, the system includes “experienced knowledge” in its database and provides corrective actions. Ex. 1003, 13:60–63, 13:12–14 (stating the system provides corrective actions to the troubleshooter once the trouble is detected);16:38–41 (stating that the diagnostic process must maintain knowledge such as the Known Faults case base and fault scenarios); 16:54– 62 (explaining that the system includes a knowledge base having knowledge such as the behavior of the managed resources in a given fault scenario or a propagation of a known fault); 33:3–12 (explaining the system includes “knowledge base models such as the fault scenarios, the known faults repository, and the corresponding corrective procedure”). Thus, for known faults, the Software Fault Management process selects an appropriate troubleshooting method from its knowledge base, i.e., a likely solution. Id. at Fig. 1, Fig. 5. However, if the fault is not a known fault, i.e., not a fault that has already been experienced for which “experienced knowledge” exists, the fault situation is recursively analyzed wherein the process performs further fault analyses and diagnostic tests, until a successful diagnosis is obtained, in which case the process performs the fault localization and repair. Ex. 1003, 36:65–37:22; Fig. 5. In other words, for unknown faults, the fault situation is recursively analyzed until a solution is found. Thus, we are not persuaded that Douik contemplates “when a likely solution to the computer problem does not exist,” as recited in claim 154. Moreover, Petitioner has not sufficiently persuaded us that Douik discloses “the AI engine saves the gathered data [about the computer system] in the knowledge database as a new case,” as recited in claim 1, and “saving the sensed information [about the computer system] as a new case of the plurality of cases,” as recited in claim 155. The claims require the saving to occur at a specific time —“when the knowledge database does not describe a likely solution to the computer problem” (claim 1) and “when a likely solution to the computer problem does not exist” (claim 15). For ease of reference, we refer to these limitations collectively as the “when a likely solution does not exist” limitation. In arguing that Douik discloses this limitation, Petitioner cites disclosure from Douik (Pet. 39–40) stating that 4 Unlike claim 15, independent claim 1 requires “when the knowledge database does not describe a likely solution to the computer problem.” (Emphasis added.) Claim 1, thus, requires that the “knowledge database” does not describe a likely solution to the problem. We are persuaded that Douik describes this limitation of claim 1 because Douik explains that the system may detect a fault that it has not previously experienced, for which it has no experienced knowledge in the known faults database, such as corrective actions, as discussed above. 5 For this limitation of claim 15, Petitioner refers to its analysis of the similar limitation in claim 1. Pet. 44 “[f]or unknown faults, the reactive SFM process assists the engineer during the trouble shooting by providing access to relevant information and tools.” (Emphasis added). Ex. 1003, 36:24–26. Douik’s description of “providing access to relevant information and tools” does not anticipate saving the gathered data or the sensed information about the computer system, when a likely solution does not exist, as required by the claims. In particular, Petitioner does not sufficiently persuade us that Douik describes providing access, during trouble shooting, to relevant information that was saved when a likely solution does not exist. Indeed, the above-cited portions of Douik are silent concerning the timing of the saving operation.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,944,839
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.