- Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 15, 2021 · IPR2019-01337 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–10, 13–15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3, 6, 11, 12, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“this case, we interpret claims in the same manner used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that the quoted language of the ’999 patent requires a construction of the term “second link” that excludes any Bluetooth connection that reuses authentication information. Other than the one vaguely worded sentence in the ’999 patent, Patent Owner does not point to any supporting evidence for this interpretation. PO Resp. 25–26; Ex. 1001, 1:47–53). To the contrary, the evidence supports a finding that when two devices reestablish communication after being disconnected, the subsequent Bluetooth link is considered a different link. See Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004, 151 (“Consequently, once a semi-permanent link key is defined, it may be used in the authentication of several subsequent connections between the Bluetooth units sharing it.”). This understanding is consistent with the ’999 patent, which refers to “initial Bluetooth link[s]” and “subsequent Bluetooth link[s]” (Ex. 1001, 1:49–50, 1:58, 4:40), and discloses that multiple links can be made between two Bluetooth compatible devices (id. at 1:17–20), without any clarification that such links are considered the same if authentication information is reused. Accordingly, we find that claim 13 requires two different links, one of which occurs later in time than the other, but that those links are not required to be of different types. And we do not agree with Patent Owner’s narrow reading, based on one sentence in the ’999 patent, that Bluetooth links that reuse authentication codes are considered the same link.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find, based on the record, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood using Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism in place of Varadharajan’s described “challenge/response routine,” to be a feasible option. This is based on both the intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence, which support such a finding, and a lack of evidence in the record to the contrary.7 See Ex. 1003, 4:62–67 (“Each time the portable computer 50 is in local or direct communication with the desk top computer 48 . . . the identity of the portable computer 50 is authenticated by the desk top computer 48 by a suitable test such as a challenge/response routine as outlined below.”); Ex. 1004, 99, 108, 149–154, 169–178, 1043, 1045–1047, 1053; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–123; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 14–22. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that BT Core teaches away from a very long, frequently changed, security key. See PO Resp. 19–20. Nothing in Varadharajan or BT Core may be said to discourage a person of ordinary skill from using the Bluetooth authentication mechanism for the authentication over Varadharajan’s direct link. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To the contrary, the facts suggest that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Varadharajan to encourage the use of any known, robust, authentication scheme (see Ex. 1003, 4:62–67), and the record shows that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism to be such a scheme (see Ex. 1001, 1:11–59, 5:38–41; Ex. 1004, 151–152, 157; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 100–109; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 17– 21). Finally, we find Petitioner has sufficiently shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to use Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism over Varadharajan’s direct link because it was a well-known method of implementing robust short-range communication and doing so would have required only the simple substitution of Bluetooth for infrared, in a similar manner, to achieve predictable results. Pet. 32–36; Reply 8–14; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–123; see KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“would have understood using Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism in place of Varadharajan’s described “challenge/response routine,” to be a feasible option. This is based on both the intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence, which support such a finding, and a lack of evidence in the record to the contrary.7 See Ex. 1003, 4:62–67 (“Each time the portable computer 50 is in local or direct communication with the desk top computer 48 . . . the identity of the portable computer 50 is authenticated by the desk top computer 48 by a suitable test such as a challenge/response routine as outlined below.”); Ex. 1004, 99, 108, 149–154, 169–178, 1043, 1045–1047, 1053; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–123; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 14–22. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that BT Core teaches away from a very long, frequently changed, security key. See PO Resp. 19–20. Nothing in Varadharajan or BT Core may be said to discourage a person of ordinary skill from using the Bluetooth authentication mechanism for the authentication over Varadharajan’s direct link. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To the contrary, the facts suggest that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Varadharajan to encourage the use of any known, robust, authentication scheme (see Ex. 1003, 4:62–67), and the record shows that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Bluetooth’s authentication mechanism to be such a scheme (see Ex. 1001, 1:11–59, 5:38–41; Ex. 1004, 151–152, 157; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 100–109; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 17– 21).” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,136,999 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,136,999 - PTAB · Oct 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00045 · APJ Christopher C Kennedy · PGR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled claims 13, 18, and 19, but denied substitute claims 23–25 because their percentage-and-range limitations introduced new matter.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“3. Scope of Proposed Substitute Claims A motion to amend “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 326(d)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221(a)(2)(ii). Although Patent Owner does not appear to separately address this requirement in the Revised Motion to Amend, see generally Revised MTA, we have reviewed the proposed substitute claims and determine that they do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent because they add limitations that render each proposed substitute claim narrower than original challenged claim 13.2 Petitioner does not contend otherwise. See generally Opp. On this record, we determine that the Revised Motion to Amend satisfies this requirement.” slip op. at 9
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“description support for numerical ranges identified by the parties is General Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018).4 In that case, the Federal Circuit explained: The disclosure of a broad range of values does not by itself provide written description support for a particular value within that range. Instead, where a specification discloses a broad range of values and a value within that range is claimed, the disclosure must allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern the limitation at issue in the claims. Id. (emphasis added); cf. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is of each of the intermediate points.”). The Federal Circuit has also stated that, “[i]n the absence of blazemarks” that point to a particular species or sub-genus, “simply describing a large genus of compounds is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement.” Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find those cases to be instructive because we discern no guidance in the original disclosure that points to the percentage+range limitation of proposed substitute claim 23. Nor do we find anything in the original disclosure that would “allow one skilled in the art to immediately discern” 4 Despite the fact that Sienna was cited in (1) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s original Motion to Amend, Paper 24 at 11; (2) the Preliminary Guidance issued by the Board, PG at 8; and (3) Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend, Opp. at 12, Patent Owner fails to cite or discuss Sienna, see generally Revised MTA; Reply. the percentage+range limitation. See Sienna, 888 F.3d at 1372. Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to any mesh sieve number range other than 3–35, and Patent Owner has not persuasively identified any portion of the original disclosure that attributes any significance to having a particular proportion of particles (e.g., 61 wt%) falling within some narrower mesh sieve number range. See Ex. 1021 (Coffield Decl.) ¶¶ 23–24.” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,071,852 - PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution for claims 1–28 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that steered planar-array beams are necessarily asymmetrical.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The request must identify, with specificity, all matters that the moving party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Lastly, Petitioner contends the Decision overlooked or “misapprehended the facts showing that all steered planar array antennas inherently result in radiation patterns having at least one asymmetrical beam.” Req. 13–15. According to Petitioner, Figure 4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,929,823 (Exhibit 2010) and Figure 3 of U.S. Patent No. 6,198,434 (Exhibit 2011), relied upon in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response as describing remedies for distortion effects due to asymmetrical beams (Prelim. Resp. 47–48), do not eliminate the inherent asymmetry of the main beam. Req. 14. However, our Decision relies on Paragraphs 151 to 156 of Mr. Cosgrove’s testimony (Ex. 2001), which cite additional sections of Exhibits 2010 and 2011, to determine that the steered beams of a planar array are not necessarily asymmetrical. Dec. 21–23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 151–156). For example, Mr. Cosgrove addresses the asymmetric bulge shown in Figure 4 of Exhibit 2010 by citing to a description of Figure 6, which describes a lobe symmetry of main lobe 610 that presents a more slender beam mid-section than that of main lobe 410 of Figure 4. Ex. 2001 ¶ 152 (citing Ex. 2010, 7:65–8:6). Mr. Cosgrove also addresses the asymmetric bulge shown in Figure 3 of Exhibit 2011 by citing to a description of Figure 6, which describes main lobe 610 as substantially symmetric, and more suited than lobe 310 of Figure 3 to provide communications within a defined subsection of an area to be served. Ex. 2001 ¶ 156 (citing Ex. 2011, 10:13–16). Accordingly, the Decision did not misapprehend or overlook any arguments or evidence presented by Petitioner. We did not abuse our discretion in determining that the Petitioner did not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that a steered beam of a planar array is necessarily asymmetrical.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 8,311,582 - Apple Inc. v. Fastvdo LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-01203 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied FastVDO’s rehearing request, leaving institution of review of claims 7–11 and 22–26 in place because no overlooked or misapprehended matter was shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“argue that Petitioner provided a “sole theory” for the claimed “error protection means” based on indefiniteness. Rather, Patent Owner argued generally that “Petitioner does not describe the structure, materials, or acts corresponding to the terms that Petitioner contends are in means-plus-function format.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Because Patent Owner did not present its “sole theory” argument in the Preliminary Response, the Board could not have misapprehended or overlooked this argument. Even considering this argument, we are not persuaded. In our Decision, we disagreed with Petitioner’s indefiniteness arguments, but nonetheless found that the Petition identifies sufficient structure to support constructions of the means-plus-function limitations. Dec. 10–16. Rather than misapprehend or overlook Patent Owner’s arguments, we found that the Specification of the ’482 patent “discloses enough of an algorithm to allow a person of ordinary skill to discern the necessary structure for performing the claimed function of the ‘error protecting means.’” Dec. 12.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 5,850,482 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no misapprehension or oversight in its decisions rejecting the challenge to claims 1–20 as obvious.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01021 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no overlooked or misapprehended evidence or arguments in the Final Written Decisions.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 8,081,536 - Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01707 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious over Payne, and claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Payne and Ackley.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“guidance in resolving this disagreement. To that end, the relevant portion of independent claim 11 recites “at least one server operative to store one or more of: a) content, b) links to content.” As an initial matter, controlling precedent from our reviewing court instructs us that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of . . . evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Accordingly, on a high level, each of the following express claim terms are presumed to have different meanings: “content”; and, “links to content.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner because Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced. Most prominently, were O’Neil the only factual support for Patent Owner’s position, it may be persuasive. Petitioner’s proposed modification, however, relies not only on O’Neil, but also on Payne and the Declaration of Dr. Greenspun. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 241; Ex. 1006, 6:9–42, 8:38–53, 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, and Fig. 5); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 272. In short, we are persuaded that the following findings in Payne asserted by Petitioner are accurate, and that it supports adequately Petitioner’s proposed modification. The system of Payne already includes functionality requiring a user to log on to an account, Ex. 1006 at 6:9–42, 8:38–53, so it would have been trivial to place the log in functionality directly on the digital advertising documents, which are web pages, see id. at 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, Fig. 5. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 240. When a patent simply arranges old elements, each performing the same function it had been known to perform and together yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Pet. 48; see also Reply 11–16. As counter-evidence, Patent Owner cites to paragraphs 46–48 of the Declaration of Dr. Papakonstantinou. Those paragraphs, however, suffer from the same logical flaw identified above.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Payne and Ackley are non- analogous art, we disagree. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To that end, Payne discloses that it relates to the field of “user-interactive network sales systems for implementing an open marketplace for goods or services over computer networks such as the Internet.” Ex. 1006, 1:14–17. Ackley discloses that it relates to the field “computer-based systems and methods that enable sales transactions between third parties through a communications network, such as internet auctions and classified systems.” Ex. 1008, 1:21–25. We see little daylight between these two fields, especially given that Ackley’s use of the word “such as” with “internet auctions” indicates that such “internet auctions” are a non-limiting example, and, thus, do not materially limit Ackley’s field of endeavor.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,516,177 - Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01706 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over MyLibrary.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In summary, we construe “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”5” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (Affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that most claim terms do not need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“7. Conclusion We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of MyLibrary. In addition to findings we make above in connection with our analysis of claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious in view MyLibrary, we also adopt as our findings Petitioner’s positions as to how MyLibrary discloses each of the limitations of claims 11, 12, and 16–20. We further adopt as our own Petitioner’s rationales for modifying MyLibrary, as referenced above.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,516,177
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.