- PTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01221 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39–41, and 43 on all asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “a relatively high level of skill, such as having at least a bachelor’s degree in the field of computer science and/or electrical engineering, together with 2–3 years in the financial technology sector.” Pet. 16. Petitioner adds that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have knowledge of the commercial and scientific literature pertaining to securing transactions” and “would also have knowledge of processing devices.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded that the term “embedded” should be narrowly construed in the manner proposed by Patent Owner. We find nothing in the claims that requires us to import a “hidden” or a “provide security” limitation into the claims. Claim 1, for example, merely recites “the image having information embedded therein, including information related to a transaction,” and “generat[ing] an output based on the information embedded in the image.” Ex. 1001, 16:24–33 (emphasis added). The claim language therefore does not require limiting embedded information in the proposed way.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, disclaiming or disavowing claim scope requires a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367. We are not persuaded that the cited portion can be read to clearly and unmistakably disavow claim scope. The cited portion of the Specification discusses various input parameters for decoding a captured image. Ex. 1001, 6:8–10. When viewed in context, “other information” refers to other predetermined information, including “the corresponding private key,” “stored in the memory 150,” which “may be used to decrypt or decode the captured image.” Id. at 6:13–22; see also id. at 5:18–20 (private keys are stored in memory). We therefore read the Specification as merely listing possible input parameters for decoding an image and not disclaiming “the corresponding private key” from the scope of “predetermined information.” After all, the very next sentence states that “predetermined information may include, for example, address information, personal profile information, and payment account information.” Id. at 6:17–22 (emphasis added). Given the various broad categories included in “predetermined information,” we are not persuaded, for purposes of institution, that “predetermined information” excludes a private key. We further determine that this preliminary construction is sufficient to resolve the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness contentions presented under Petitioner’s Ground 1, and no further construction of the term is necessary.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,314,167 - PTAB · Nov 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00821 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by Jones and claims 1–20 are obvious over Jones, Zheng, and Keenan.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’008 patent is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’008 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hurlbut (Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner proffers constructions for two terms, namely, (1) “threat model components” and (2) “attack paths,” as recited, for example, in independent claim 4. Pet. 12. Petitioner submits that it defines these two terms “consistent with the ’008 patent specification and applies the plain and ordinary meaning that [the skilled artisan] would attribute to the remaining terms.” Pet. 12. “Patent Owner submits that the Board need not engage in any pre-institution claim construction of these [two] terms.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based upon our consideration of the record at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that it is unnecessary to interpret expressly any term in the ’008 patent claims for which we institute inter partes review. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Nevertheless, we determine that briefing during the trial on the proper interpretation of certain claim terms may assist us in resolving issues presented in this case. In particular, we invite the parties to address the proper construction of the limitation “redefine the first threat model by including in it a second threat model associated with the component group,” as recited, for example, in independent claim 1, and to provide evidentiary support therefor (the parties should focus particularly on defining the full scope of what it means to “redefine” the first threat model and to “include” a second threat model “in” a first threat model). To the extent that a party proposes that this limitation should have its ordinary and customary meaning, we encourage the party to explicitly identify such meaning(s) and the evidentiary support therefor. In addition, the parties should consider whether Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) applies to limitations of the challenged claims, such as claim 1’s recital of “configuring the diagram interface to, in response to receiving one or more user inputs, add a component group to the first threat model.”” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Pet. 35–36 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1004, 6:12–34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–84). As we understand Petitioner’s argument (and its expert’s testimony), Petitioner argues Jones “modifies,” i.e., “redefines,” a “first threat model” (level n) by “including” in it cybersecurity threats (e.g., via metadata) associated with nested components (i.e., “a second threat model”), to produce the “modified” (“redefined”) “first threat model” (level n+1). See id.; In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832–33 (anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”). In other words, Petitioner argues that, although Jones may not use the identical terminology as the ’008 patent, Jones nevertheless explicitly discloses limitation 1[f] to the skilled artisan, by describing modifying a first “threat” model from a level “n” model to a level “n+1” model by including therein threats associated with a particular layer of components (nested components), i.e., a second “threat” model. Based on the record before us, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,699,008 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Keenan anticipates the claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’366 patent is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all Challenged Claims of the ’366 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the earliest effective filing date of the ’366 patent: would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, mathematics, or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience in software development and designing or implementing threat models. Additional work or research” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner proffers constructions for four terms, namely, (1) “third party software application,” (2) “third party diagram components,” (3) “visual representations of the threat model components,” and (4) “threat model components,” each as recited, for example, in independent claim 1. Pet. 12–14. Petitioner submits “[Patent Owner] defined [these] claim terms in the specification and file history,” “Petitioner is applying those definitions in this petition,” and “[f]or all other claim terms, Petitioner applies the plain and ordinary meaning that a [skilled artisan] would attribute to those terms.” Pet. 12. “Patent Owner submits that the Board need not engage in any pre-institution claim construction of these [four] terms.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Based upon our consideration of the record at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that it is unnecessary to interpret expressly any term in the ’366 patent claims for which we institute inter partes review. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Nevertheless, we determine that briefing during the trial on the proper interpretation of certain claim terms may assist us in resolving issues presented in this case. In particular, we invite the parties to address the proper construction of “threats,” “threat model components,” “visual representations of the threat model components,” and “mapping files,” and the evidentiary support therefor. To the extent that a party proposes that such a term should have its ordinary and customary meaning, we encourage the party to explicitly identify such meaning(s) and the evidentiary support therefor.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“does not disclose the “threats” described and claimed in the ’366 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 5–7, 11–19. Based on the record before us at this stage of the proceeding, we disagree and preliminarily find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing, as further discussed below. In particular, Patent Owner concedes that “Keenan discloses that color can ‘represent different types of risk (e.g., cyber, environmental, accidental, etc.),’” where Keenan displays such colors associated with objects in a topology. Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 16:40–51) (emphases added); see Ex. 1004, Fig. 7. But Patent Owner then merely concludes, without citing any factual support, that “use of a color identifying the generic nature of a risk still fails to disclose any threats associated with the risk.” Id. at 17– 18. On the other hand, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, testifies: Keenan demonstrates that its risk measurement and display includes a determination of threats where Keenan discloses a risk measurement view that uses [] color to “represent different types of risk (e.g., cyber, environmental, accidental, etc.).” [Ex. 1004], 16:40–51. [The skilled artisan] would understand that “types of risk,” as disclosed in Keenan are threats because the described examples are all types of threats (cyber, environmental, accidental). Thus, Keenan discloses threats within its risk analysis. Moreover, [the skilled artisan] would understand that risk is a function of threats exploiting vulnerabilities to obtain, damage, or destroy assets. In other words, threat modeling is used to identify risk. Ex. 1003 ¶ 79 (cited at Pet. 21–24); see id. ¶ 82 (cited at Pet. 26–28). Patent Owner disputes this testimony of Mr. Hurlbut using only attorney argument, and without telling us, for example, why Mr. Hurlbut allegedly is wrong (e.g., by explaining why specific “types” of risk do not fall within the scope of “threats” as broadly recited in claim 1, or how “risk” is not a function of “threats” in Keenan, as explained by Mr. Hurlbut). See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Moreover, although Patent Owner characterizes the “types of risk” disclosed in Keenan as identifying a “generic nature of a risk” (Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (emphasis added)), we note that “threats” is broadly recited in claim 1 with no requirement as to any level of specificity of such threats.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,366 - Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 7, 2023 · IPR2023-00581 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 2–6, 11, 14, and 16 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial of institution. Specifically, we determine that Petitioner’s stipulation and reasonable diligence in filing the Petition as well as the parties’ minimal investment in the District Court Litigation outweigh the projected trial date. See Director’s Memo at 8 (“[W]hen analyzing the proximity of the court’s trial date under factor two of Fintiv, when other relevant factors weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution or are neutral, the proximity to trial should not alone outweigh all of those other factors.”). As a result, we need not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). 7. Summary Based on our holistic view of the Fintiv factors, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“First, Patent Owner argues that Angelot previously was presented to the Office during prosecution of U.S. Application No. 14/938,056 (“the ’056 application”), which is “a child of the ’772 [p]atent.” Prelim. Resp. 24, 64–65. Specifically, Patent Owner contends that the Examiner of the ’056 application issued a rejection based on Angelot, and Patent Owner “overcame that rejection.” Id. at 64–65. However, “[u]nder § 325(d), the art and arguments must have been previously presented to the Office during proceedings pertaining to the challenged patent.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7 (emphasis added). Here, Patent Owner at most presents evidence that Angelot previously was presented to the Office during proceedings pertaining to an application that claims priority to the ’772 patent. Prelim. Resp. 63–65. Patent Owner does not show that Angelot (or any arguments based on Angelot) previously were presented to the Office during proceedings pertaining to the ’772 patent. See id. Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s evidence that relaying was known in the art is “cumulative of art cited by [Patent Owner] and considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’772 [p]atent.” Prelim. Resp. 52–54. For each asserted ground, Petitioner relies on Angelot for most of the claim limitations and relies on the allegedly cumulative art only to show that relaying was known in the art. Pet. 20–72. But, as discussed above, Patent Owner does not show that Angelot (or any arguments based on Angelot) previously were presented to the Office during proceedings pertaining to the ’772 patent. Thus, on this record, we are not persuaded that the same or substantially the same art or the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. As a result, the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). Further, a decision to institute may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Here, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on all the grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least five years of experience in designing communication systems.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–39). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Daniel Blumenthal. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–39. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 25. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,886,772 - PTAB · Aug 7, 2023 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that Sourcefire and Emerging Threats render the claims obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’343 Patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’343 Patent on the grounds of unpatentability raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner’s arguments. The fact that the disclosures of cited references are the same or similar is unremarkable in that they are applied against the same claims. Additionally, Patent Owner has not presented evidence that the instant Petitioner applied the prior petition, and its non-institution, as a roadmap to try and correct errors of the prior petition. As such, we agree with Petitioner that factor (1) weighs strongly against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“After reviewing the evidence, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s assessment that Emerging Threats is cumulative to Stolfo, which the Examiner considered during prosecution. Patent Owner previously distinguished its claims from Stolfo by arguing, in part, that “Stolfo describes that network statistics may be used to ‘modify the decoy traffic such that it appears statistically similar to normal traffic,’” and that “Stolfo describes generating decoy traffic and not applying a transformation to existing network traffic.” Ex. 1002, 87 (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 124). Patent Owner also argued that “the decoy traffic used in Stolfo does not prevent an exfiltration operation[, but instead,] Stolfo explains that ‘[t]hese traps use decoy information . . . to attract, deceive, and/or confuse attackers (e.g., inside attackers, external attackers, etc.) and/or malware.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2001 ¶ 124). In contrast, as Petitioner asserts, Emerging Threats discloses its rules to be Snort rules for preventing exfiltration. Pet. 37–43. Petitioner’s explanations of the different rules disclosed in Emerging Threats illustrate their use in preventing exfiltration, and not merely applying processes to decoy traffic. Id. Petitioner also discusses the correspondences between specific rules provided in Emerging Threats and operators disclosed in the ’343 Patent. Id. As such, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Emerging Threats is merely cumulative to Stolfo. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s combination of Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is cumulative to the art previously considered by the Examiner in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’343 Patent, or that the proposed grounds are based on the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office. In conjunction with Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has not shown that the Office erred, we conclude that, given the circumstances presented here, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that Petitioner’s proposed grounds are based on the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office. As a result, we need not further consider whether Petitioner has shown error on the part of the Office. Accordingly, although we have considered Patent Owner’s request for our exercise of discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), on the record before us, we conclude that denial of institution on that basis is not warranted. We proceed to consider the merits of Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability below.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the evidence of the public accessibility of Emerging Threats in the relevant timeframe, we determine that Petitioner has established that Emerging Threats qualifies as a printed publication under § 102(b) for purposes of institution. The presence of the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine copy suggests that the document was available and was accessible on December 2, 2010, prior to the March 12, 2013 effective filing date of the ’343 Patent. We have concerns that Dr. Staniford is only able to vaguely assert that the rules provided in the text document appear to be true copies of the rules that existed in 2010. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 204. Given the nature of inter partes review, however, we can be concerned only with the publication itself; we cannot rely on or inquire into how some system performed or was used in the relevant timeframe. Nonetheless, we are persuaded by Dr. Staniford’s unrebutted testimony that Snort was begun as an open source project in the late 1990s, that the Bleeding Snort project launched in 2004 as an independent clearing house for Snort rules, and that the project continues as Emerging Threats. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202–203. This testimony is sufficient, for purposes of institution, to show that one of ordinary skill in the art, at and prior to the effective filing date of the ’343 Patent, would have known to look to the Emerging Threats website for Snort rules that could be applied to conventional cyber defense systems. We determine this to be a reasonable showing, at this stage of the proceeding, that Emerging Threats was sufficiently publicly accessible to be a printed publication. With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding searchability of the Emerging Threats website, given its notoriety, we are unpersuaded that persons of ordinary skill in the art proceeding to the website would not have been able to search its contents and find the rules logged thereon that would have been applicable to the users’ network security concerns. Even based on Patent Owner’s presentation of the website (Prelim. Resp. 40 (citing Ex. 1030, 11; Ex. 1054)), we are persuaded that it would only have required the exercise of reasonable diligence to find the rules list, given the knowledge that one of ordinary skill would have had regarding Emerging Threats. Petitioner asserts that specific rules can be located within Emerging Threats by searching for their unique SID (Pet. 38 n.9), but persons proceeding to the website without knowledge of a specific SID would have found this to be of little help. Nonetheless, the number of locations that the rules may be located on the Emerging Threats website is still limited and users would have been able to utilize the “Last Modified” indicator, showing which directories had been modified recently, to narrow down any search, assuming that items that had not been modified for some time would be less worthy of search. As such, we are not persuaded that persons of ordinary skill in the art, proceeding to the Emerging Threats website, would not have been able to have searched its contents and find the rules contained thereon.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstitutedPTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00119 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–15, 17, and 18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Rosenberger alone or with Basye.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Examples of such errors may include misapprehending or overlooking specific material teachings of the relevant prior art or misapplying the law in a material way. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9. For this analysis, Becton, Dickinson Factors (c), (e), and (f) are particularly relevant. See id. at 10.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“detailed, comprehensive, and substantive analysis. See Pet. 22–49. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments, and for purposes of this Decision, based on the evidence and arguments before us, we determine for the reasons stated in the Petition (id.) that the evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are unpatentable. a) Conclusion for Claims 1, 9, and 17 Based on the arguments and evidence in the record before us, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are anticipated by Rosenberger.” slip op. at 33
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose each and every element of the claim, either explicitly or inherently.” Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Eli Lilly & 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296–07 (2011), took effect on September 16, 2011. The changes to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any patent application filed before March 16, 2013. Because the application for the patent at issue in this proceeding claims priority to applications filed after March 16, 2013, we refer to the AIA version of the statute. 3 U.S. Patent No. 8,340,975 B1, Dec. 25, 2012, Ex. 1003 (“Rosenberger”). 4 U.S. Patent Application Publ. No. 2014/01636978 A1, June 12, 2014, Ex. 1013 (“Basye”). 5 Dr. Johnson earned undergraduate degrees in Computer Science Engineering and in Electrical Engineering, a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, and a Ph.D. degree “with a doctoral dissertation focused on speech processing and automatic speech recognition.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 6. He currently is “the Department Chair and a Full Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Kentucky.” Id. ¶ 5. His extensive experience in academia and research is summarized in his testimony. See id. ¶¶ 5–11; see also id., App. A (Dr. Johnson’s CV). Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharms., Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “While those elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, the reference need not disclose the elements in the very same terms used by the patent.” Id. (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990))). “The question of what a reference teaches and whether it describes every element of a claim is a question for the finder of fact.” Id. (citing Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). As further explained in Net MoneyIN, unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Id.; see also Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“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.”). “The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“or limitation in dependent claims 4, 6, 12, and 14 is disclosed in Rosenberger or Basye. Pet. 61–69. Petitioner also provides reasons why a person of ordinary skill would use the energy management technology of Basye in the Rosenberger device. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to modify Rosenberger to incorporate Basye’s teachings such that the ‘control device’ of Rosenberger would transmit its WS [weighted signal] message based on determining that its hotword score satisfies a threshold.” Id. at 69–70 (citing Ex.1002 ¶¶ 212-16). Petitioner also asserts a person of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to modify Rosenberger’s ‘control device’ to utilize a threshold determination as a basis to transmit its WS messages over the network to help reduce ‘false positive’ detections of a ‘trigger phrase’ (or ‘wakeword’).” Pet. 70 (citing Ex.1002, ¶214). The reason why a skilled person would have made this modification, according to Petitioner, is that “Basye explains that the use of ‘thresholding’ can help reduce false positives, which is a situation where a computing device incorrectly determines that speech is present or that speech includes a wakeword. Pet. 70 (citing Ex.1013 ¶¶ 51, 74–75). Moreover, Petitioner also asserts that, as Basye explains, this “helps to conserve power and/or processing resources.” Id. (citing Ex.1002 ¶ 215; Ex.1013 ¶¶ 9–10, 38, 44).” slip op. at 37
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,593,330 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstitutedPTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2023-00118 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by Rosenberger and obviousness over Rosenberger and Basye.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“detailed, comprehensive, and substantive analysis. See Pet. 22–50. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and arguments, and for purposes of this Decision, based on the evidence and arguments before us, we determine for the reasons stated in the Petition (See Pet. 22–50) that the evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are unpatentable. a) Conclusion for Claims 1, 9, and 16 Based on the arguments and evidence in the record before us, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are anticipated by Rosenberger.” slip op. at 37
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Based on the evidence of record, we determine for purposes of this Decision, that (1) the lack of any substantive analysis or discussion of Rosenberger in the examination of the application that matured into the ’398 patent, (2) the prominent role of Rosenberger in this large family of related patents, (3) the double patenting rejection establishing a close relationship between the claims of the ’398 patent and claims that were rejected based on Rosenberger in the ’752 patent, (4) the failure to provide a “suitable” (see MPEP § 1302.14. IV(D), substantive reason why the claims were allowed, and (5) our determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger anticipates several claims in the ’398 patent collectively support Petitioner’s assertion that the Examiner overlooked specific material disclosures in Rosenberger. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8–9 n.9 (“An example of a material error may include . . . overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.”).” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2-4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60–63). Dr. Johnson’s Declaration testimony states he considered some of the factors listed above. Ex. 1002 ¶ 61. Dr. Johnson “also considered [his] own experiences working and teaching in the fields of voice and audio processing.” Id. Dr. Johnson testifies that, in his opinion, the level of ordinary skill is as stated by Petitioner. Id. at 62. Patent Owner does not assert a level of ordinary skill, nor does Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, Prelim. Resp., generally. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’398 patent, and Dr. Johnson’s undisputed testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill.8” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states, “the Challenged Claims do not require construction.” Pet. 22. Patent Owner does not propose, or comment on, any claim construction. See, generally Prelim. Resp. We do not perceive the need to construe any claim limitation. Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe the claim preambles here where the construction is not ‘material to the [obviousness] dispute.’” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,134,398 - PTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-01525 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized 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.” Taking into account the arguments and evidence presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’526 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“includes “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record, we find that there is a reasonable likelihood that IPUG was publicly accessible before the earliest possible priority date of the ’526 patent, July 24, 2017.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“this proceeding.” Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner notes that in the related ITC proceeding, the parties agreed that the term “flow identification data” means “identification data that identifies a communication flow.” Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe the term “flow identification data” because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Patent Owner asserts that “no other express construction of any term is required to resolve any controversies” at this preliminary stage of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6. Nonetheless, as discussed below in Section III.C.4.f, in the context of its patentability analysis, Patent Owner raises an implicit claim construction argument regarding the claim term “performing a corresponding action” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. See Prelim. Resp. 22–24. Although Patent Owner’s argument raises an issue of claim construction, the issue is closely related to the issue of whether IPUG discloses “performing a corresponding action” recited in claims 1 and 11. Thus, we address this issue in the context of the patentability discussion in Section III.C.4.f below. Apart from this term, no other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Starting with the claim language, claim 1 recites “performing a corresponding action on each packet of the encrypted communication flow.” Ex. 1001, 18:12–14. The claim recites broadly “performing a corresponding action” and does not require, at least not explicitly, any additional action to the traffic after allowing, such as “logging and capturing” or “applying some transformation.” In addition, the claim recites “performing a corresponding action on . . . the encrypted communication flow,” not on decrypted plaintext packet of the allowed traffic. Thus, at least based on the claim language, we are not persuaded at this time “performing a corresponding action” should be limited as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,284,526 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01594 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–13, and 15 on all challenged grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger anticipates at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioners cannot satisfy their burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Because the Petition “presents to the Office the same or substantially the same art previously presented to the Office,” we turn to the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework and consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) in determining “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 7–8, 10. With regard to the alleged error, the Petition states, “[b]ecause the Examiner did not substantively evaluate Rosenberger during prosecution of the ’128 Patent and assumed that the allowed claims required a limitation not found in the claims, the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability.” Pet. 11. Specifically, the Petitioner argues, “the Examiner incorrectly assumed that the allowed claims required each of the claimed ‘plurality of electronic devices’ to operate in a ‘low power state.’ But the allowed claims do not recite such a limitation.” Id. We find this argument persuasive. In discussing the art including Rosenberger, the Examiner stated: [T]he combination of A-BB taken in any order fails to teach or suggest the complex claim limitations as a whole. It is clear that even if the server is a second device and in a semi-sleep state e.g. monitor off, fucnationally [sic] as a sleep state, the system still requires the first device and not the second server device 885 based vocie [sic] response 850 to process the voice command as shown in fig. 8B . . . in element 830. At best it will compartmentalize different low power states only on the first device. . . . Therefore the combination taken in any order fails to teach or suggest the complex claims as a whole. Ex. 1004, 11–12 (emphasis added); see also id. at 10 (the Examiner finding that the prior art discloses a “[s]emi-sleep state whic[h] can only process commands on mobile device” (emphasis omitted)). None of the claims of the ’128 patent recite a server, semi-sleep state, or low power state. Ex. 1001, 35:54–38:28. The Examiner never identified any limitation that distinguished the claims of the ’128 patent from the prior art (including Rosenberger) or specifically explained what recitation of the claims makes them patentable. See id. at 6–13. It was material error to rely on limitations not present in the claims in allowing the claims. And, as shown above, there is a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger discloses the methods and devices recited in the allowed claims. We find that the Examiner erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. For these reasons, we believe it is not appropriate to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution.8” slip op. at 34
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a “POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)] in the technology field of the ’128 Patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2–4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 (Johnson Decl.), ¶¶ 63–65.). Patent Owner does not present a position on the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See generally Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’128 patent and the cited prior art. In order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.4” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“B. Legal Standards In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Anticipation “requires that every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1267–69 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,812,128 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCInstitutedPTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01592 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–3, 8–12, 14–18, and 20 on all challenged grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Rosenberger anticipates at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Summary as to Independent Claim 16 In the absence of any contradictory arguments or evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of independent claim 16 as anticipated by Rosenberger. Although we appreciate that Patent Owner has not yet presented any arguments or evidence on the merits of Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 16 as anticipated by Rosenberger, this challenge appears strong. On that basis, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable and that inter partes review should be instituted.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“[a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether 5 Chapter 31 (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) relates to inter partes review. the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“recognize from the electrical signals when a speech command from an expected vocabulary or grammar has likely been spoken, and (ii) to act thereon to first produce a weighted signal representing the quality of a just-recognized speech command, and then produce, only in the event the value of said weighted signal exceeds the respective values of all weighted signals produced by other devices within said building space that simultaneously recognized the same speech command, predetermined system control signals by which a desired effect, reflective of the speech commands, is achieved within the building space by system controllers or automated mechanisms that respond to such system control signals; (c) a transmitter operatively coupled to the microcontroller for selectively transmitting the weighted signal and the predetermined system control signals into the building space; (d) a receiver, operatively coupled to the microcontroller, for receiving weighted signals emanating from one or more other control devices within the building space; and (e) audio output circuitry through which the microcontroller can transmit audible sounds to interact with and provide indications of the system status to the system user. A preferred characteristic of the control device of the invention is that, within a predetermined time interval after it has produced the weighted signal in response to recognizing a given speech command, the microcontroller operates to compare the value of this signal with the respective value(s) of the weighted signals produced by all other control devices that have been triggered by the same speech command at the same time and have transmitted their respective weighted signals to such microcontroller. In the event the value of such weighted signal exceeds the respective values of all other weighted signals with which it has been compared, the microcontroller proceeds in handling the given speech command. Otherwise, it defers handling of the speech command to the other devices and reverts to a “listening” mode awaiting subsequent speech commands. Id. at 4:6–47.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“E. Challenges Based on Rosenberger and Kim Petitioner also challenges claim 11 as unpatentable as obvious in view of a combination of the teachings of Rosenberger and Kim. Pet. 4, 60–71. Having already determined that: (1) Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of claim 11 as anticipated by Rosenberger without having to consider Kim; and (2) institution is appropriate because the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable, we determine that it is unnecessary for us to analyze this challenge in order to decide to institute inter partes review. We would like to have the record more fully developed and to hear from Patent Owner on the merits before substantively analyzing this challenge.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,024,311
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.