- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting 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))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,108,595 - Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00398 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill was not shown to disclose the claimed Integration Tier Limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s undisputed formulation of ordinary skill in the art as set forth above, because we are satisfied this formulation generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’196 patent and the asserted prior art. We do not adopt Patent Owner’s annotation to Petitioner’s formulation as requiring knowledge of “mobile wallets” specifically, because we determine knowledge of “mobile payment systems and techniques” per Petitioner’s formulation is tied sufficiently to the claims of the ’196 patent to reflect the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. At the same time, even if we were to include knowledge of “mobile wallets” in our formulation, it would not materially change our Decision as set forth below. That is, we would still determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dill discloses the Integration Tier Limitation.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyNot reached
“We need not resolve the parties’ dispute as to whether Dr. Houh qualifies as an ordinarily skilled artisan. Even assuming that Dr. Houh possesses, at a minimum, ordinary skill in the art—as we have done in this Decision—we determine Petitioner still fails to show that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The Integration Tier Limitation requires no further construction for purposes of this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 7 (“[N]o specific construction is required.”). The claim clearly specifies that the claimed “web services communication mechanisms” must serve as an interface between the integration tier and (1) the claimed mobile wallet application and, separately, (2) “a plurality of different device types over a plurality of different communication channels.” For purposes of this Decision, we assume that this interface may be direct or indirect. See id. at 6 (asserting that “communication channels that interface, even indirectly, with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’ still interface with the ‘web services communication mechanisms’”).” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, we find that of those four channels (1)–(4), only the first channel (1) is associated with web interface 137 such that it qualifies as a “communication channel,” as required by claim 1. There is no indication in the Dill disclosures cited by Petitioner that any of the other three channels (2)–(4) are associated with web interface 137. For example, Figure 9 of Dill includes a double-headed arrow to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and transfer options module 145, but Figure 9 does not include any arrows to illustrate communication between web interface 137 and any one or more of IVR interface 136, other interfaces 138, agent system 135, or mobile network 115. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 9. In other words, Petitioner fails to show Dill teaches web interface 137 interfaces with any devices over any of channels (2)–(4), as would be required by Petitioner’s mapping. In the Petition, Petitioner never clearly (or persuasively) addresses this requirement of the claim. Petitioner does contend that transfer options module 145 is coupled to various devices via interfaces 136–138 and exchanges transaction information (see Pet. 25–26; see also Pet. Reply 10– 11), but that contention misses the mark. The salient question is whether Dill’s web interface 137 (i.e., the claimed “web services communication mechanisms”) interfaces with the different device types over the channels, not whether transfer options module 145 (i.e., the claimed “integration tier”) does so.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,438,196 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,438,196 - Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00399 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Dill, Vadhri, and Akashika because Dill did not teach or render obvious the hardware SIM card and integration tier limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Institution Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in software development with a basic knowledge of accounting” and “working knowledge of mobile payment systems and techniques,” as Petitioner proposes. Inst. Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 3–4). We stated that “this definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’488 patent and the asserted prior art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“In addition, Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Houh’s testimony (see Pet. 23–24) is unavailing. Although Dr. Houh agrees with the arguments in the Petition and includes quotes from the cited portions of Dill and Bykov (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–97), he provides no additional analysis or explanation beyond what was provided in the Petition. As a result, his testimony suffers the same deficiencies as the Petition. Also, we do not credit his conclusion that Dill includes the requisite disclosure (see id. ¶ 97) because he fails to provide sufficient supporting explanation or evidence (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)). Finally, we note that Petitioner misrepresents Dr. Shamos’s testimony by stating that Dr. Shamos “agrees that if a mobile device executes a mobile wallet over a cellular network, the mobile device has a SIM card for the mobile wallet.” Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10). In the cited testimony, Dr. Shamos agrees that mobile devices have SIM cards, but he does not address where a mobile wallet application would be installed. Ex. 1022, 29:4–7, 40:9–10. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, we determine that Dr. Shamos’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“for the term “hardware SIM card” because the important points are undisputed. In particular, the parties agree that a “hardware SIM card” is a SIM card implemented in hardware rather than software. See Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶ 36); Tr. 40:25–41:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel explaining that the language in its proposed construction was “to differentiate it from a software SIM card”); see also PO Resp. 16, 19 (asserting that the term refers to a specific type of hardware, namely a “chip” or a “smart card”) (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 32–33). The parties also agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “SIM card” is a component in a mobile device involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See Tr. 30:23–31:3 (Petitioner’s counsel stating “a SIM card, just as known in the art . . . would allow the user to be able to access the mobile network” 10 Each page in Exhibit 2021 includes at least two page numbers. For clarity, we refer to the page number of the exhibit (shown in the bottom right corner), and we have adjusted Patent Owner’s citation accordingly. given “the user’s identification information on it”), 39:24–40:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that “I think everyone is in agreement that the critical aspect of what makes a SIM card a SIM card is that it can authenticate a mobile device to a wireless network”). The evidence supports the parties’ understanding. The word “SIM” is an acronym for “subscriber identity module” (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:58–67; Ex. 2021, 5), and the record shows that a SIM is a specific component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network (see Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–31; see also e.g., Ex. 2021, 7 (stating that a SIM’s “primary function” is “to authenticate the subscriber to the network”); Ex. 2025, 3 (describing the SIM)).11 Consequently, we determine that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood a “hardware SIM card” to be a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. We do not need to further construe the term, or determine whether the additional requirements proposed by Patent Owner are appropriate, because Petitioner fails to show that the prior art teaches or suggests the claimed “hardware SIM card,” as explained below. See infra § II.D.2.a (analyzing the parties’ substantive contentions).” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dill discloses “a mobile wallet application installed on a hardware SIM card,” as required by element 1.3B. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, even assuming that Dill teaches installing a mobile wallet application somewhere on a mobile device (see Pet. 23),14 Dill does not teach installing it on a hardware SIM card,15 as specifically required by the claim. Petitioner relies upon paragraph 106 of Dill (see Pet. 23), but that paragraph does not disclose this claim limitation (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 106). In relevant part, that paragraph of Dill simply states: 14 Patent Owner disagrees with this premise, arguing that Dill does not disclose a mobile device that includes a mobile wallet application. See PO Resp. 52–56. We need not resolve that dispute because, even assuming Petitioner’s premise (as we have done in this Decision), Petitioner still fails to show that the claims are unpatentable. 15 As noted above, a “hardware SIM card” is a hardware component in a mobile device that is involved in identifying and authenticating a user to a mobile network. See supra § II.C.1 (addressing meaning of term). It should also be appreciated that the methods described above may be performed by hardware components or may be embodied in sequences of machine-executable instructions, which may be used to cause a machine such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor or logic circuits programmed with the instructions to perform the methods. These machine-executable instructions may be stored on one or more machine readable mediums, such as CD-ROMs or other type of optical disks, floppy diskettes, ROMs, RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, flash memory, or other types of machine-readable mediums suitable for storing electronic instructions. Alternatively, the methods may be performed by a combination of hardware and software. Ex. 1005 ¶ 106 (emphases added). This teaches storing instructions on “other types of machine-readable mediums,” but it fails to teach storing instructions on a hardware SIM card, much less storing Dill’s mobile wallet application there. In short, Dill is silent with respect to this issue, and silence is not disclosure. Notably, Petitioner does not contend (or show) that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device would necessarily be installed on a hardware SIM card. See Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–97. Indeed, the record indicates that a mobile wallet application installed on a mobile device could instead be installed on a different component. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:1–3, 9:33–35 (identifying device memory as alternate component); Ex. 2021, 5 (describing SIM as the “smaller of two computer chips inside a GSM mobile handset”); cf. Pet. Reply 9 (distinguishing between hardware SIM cards and software ones). Thus, Petitioner fails to show that this claim limitation is inherent in Dill. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that inherency requires a showing that “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present”).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 9,208,488 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,208,488 - Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable: Doo did not disclose the claimed volume, the Doo-Amira combination lacked a persuasive rationale, and the other references were not shown publicly accessible.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties propose constructions for the claim terms “three- dimensional (3D) data,” “inner layer(s) of the patient,” “confined within a virtual 3D shape,” and “being having.” Pet. 11–14; PO Resp. 11–18. We do not need to construe any of these claim terms in order to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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)).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, neither the Petition nor Dr. Kazanzides explains how Doo’s curved plane teaches the claimed “volume.” See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 74–75 (essentially repeating the Petition). The Petition merely asserts that Doo’s image in Figure 7 “is confined within the volume of the virtual 3D shape illustrated in Figure 9,” without explaining how the shape of Figure 9 has a “volume.” Pet. 37. The Reply does no better, asserting that “Doo’s shape 532 in Figure 9 and shape 432 in Figure 7 are virtual 3D shapes.” Reply 18. This statement is conclusory and does not explain how Doo’s “false 3D” shapes have volume. Petitioner further attempts to establish that Doo’s disclosure of Figure 9’s shape 532 as “mimic[ing] the surface curvature of the patient’s body” is evidence that Doo discloses a 3D shape. Id. (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 76). This argument, however, is unpersuasive because it takes Doo’s statement out of context. Doo explains that Figure 9’s warped “two-dimensional image 532 . . . mimic[s] the surface curvature of the patient’s body,” not that it has volume. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 76 (emphasis added). In other words, even though Doo’s shape 532 of Figure 9, when projected on a patient’s body (as in Figure 7) may appear to a surgeon like a 9 Our Institution Decision did not rely on Petitioner’s theory based on Doo Figures 7–9. We discuss our Institution Decision’s reasoning below under Petitioner’s second theory based on Doo Figures 6 and 11. half-cylinder shape having a volume, Doo’s technique avoids rendering a 3D shape like a half-cylinder (hence calling these “false 3D shapes”) because it instead simulates the body’s curvature with a mere curved two-dimensional plane. Second, we find that Doo’s curved plane does not, in fact, have a volume.10 Instead, Doo’s curved plane is a 2D plane merely “wrapped around an axis.” See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–76. As Patent Owner persuasively argued at the hearing, Doo’s curved plane is not “half of a cylinder. It’s just a wrapped piece of paper.” Tr. 33:14–15. Just as curving a piece of paper would not give the curved paper a half cylinder’s volume, neither does curving Doo’s flat 2D plane create a half cylinder with volume. Viewed another way, curving a 2D plane does not impart volume to the plane any more than curving a 1D line into a parabola would impart area to the 1D line.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Petitioner’s argument fails this standard. Petitioner asserts a generic rationale that one of ordinary skill in the art would have applied Amira to Doo “to take advantage of the visualization technology disclosed in Amira (or any similar visualization software).” Pet. 41. But Petitioner’s assertion contains no explanation why one of ordinary skill would have taken advantage of Amira’s technology in the context of Doo. Petitioner’s rationale is so vague and broad that it could be applied to combine any two references because it merely asserts that one reference would “take advantage of the . . . technology disclosed in” another. See, e.g., In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “a finding that a combination of prior art would have been . . . ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious’”). This approach wholly misses KSR’s “articulated reasoning” standard. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Reply’s assertion that reducing a surgeon’s cognitive load in Doo “suggests an improvement on conventional medical imaging displays, such as disclosed in Amira,” fares no better. Reply 20. This assertion again fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Amira with Doo. For instance, Petitioner provides no explanation as to how Amira’s display would further reduce cognitive load. See Reply 19–20 (only vaguely referring to Amira’s “[t]racking capabilities [that] allow for . . . interaction with the visualization” (Ex. 1005, 14, 26)). Not only that, but Doo itself presents a solution for the cognitive load problem. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 14 (“The present invention is particularly adapted to manage the multitude of medical images needed to be viewed by a surgeon during an operation so that a surgeon is not required to look away from the patient, so that the surgeon does not have to sustain heavy cognitive loading.”). Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would turn to yet another reference (like Amira) for an additional solution, or even what that solution would be.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,004,271 - Cerebras Systems Inc. v. Rex Computing, IncNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00741 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the cited combinations failed to teach required router retention, scratchpad memory, or optimal square-versus-linear tile assignment limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the time the ’975 patent was filed. Pet. 6. Relying upon the Conte Declaration, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of microprocessor design or a similar field . . . and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30). Patent Owner applies this 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. assessment in its Response. Resp. 8. Based on the fully developed record, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner because it is supported by the Conte Declaration and is consistent with the ’975 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and 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) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no constructions are required for the above-disputed terms. slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“above-described manner to store data. But Dr. Conte’s direct testimony does not address other statements in the ’975 patent specification that describe the scratchpad memory as an alternative to a cache. See Ex. 1001, 8:27–33 (“each of the cores includes a scratchpad memory . . . . As a result, conventional L-level caches may not be used in the architecture 299 because the scratchpad memories . . . provide data storage”); see also id. at 3:21–4:35 (describing drawbacks of prior art architectures that rely on caches), 5:14–20 (stating that each core may include a scratchpad memory instead of a cache). As Dr. Bagherzadeh stated, “Dr. Conte never reconciled [his] opinion with the ’975 Patent’s disclosure, which, as I described, connects the concept of using a scratchpad memory to a cache-less architecture.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 92 (citing Ex. 1001 Fig. 3). Dr. Conte’s deposition testimony did not clarify this issue, stating that the issue of cacheless architecture was “disconnected” from whether a microprocessor has a scratchpad. Ex. 2002, 40:10–15. The ’975 patent specification’s description of a scratchpad memory module as an alternative to cache memory is evidence that an ordinary artisan, upon reading the entirety of the ’975 patent, would not have considered the scope of the claimed scratchpad memory to include a cache memory. Dr. Conte has relied upon the ’975 patent specification for general properties seemingly common to both caches and scratchpad memory, but has not explained why the ’975 patent specification’s statements distinguishing a scratchpad memory from a cache should not limit the scope of the claimed “scratchpad memory.” As a result, Dr. Conte’s testimony does not significantly assist in construing “scratchpad memory” in any manner relevant to the pertinent issue; i.e., whether it may be taught by a prior art cache memory.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“data “occurs in the router’s input buffer” (Pet. Reply 10 (emphasis added)), but Petitioner does not support this assertion with analysis or evidence. To the contrary, Petitioner has clarified that the “input” on which words wait is “the input of the processor,” not the router. Pet. Reply 12. Claim 1 requires that a router must be operable to retain such data (limitation [1g]), and that the processor cores are distinct from the routers (limitation [1a]). Thus, to the extent that MIT2002 teaches data waiting at the input of the processor, Petitioner has not pointed to evidence or reasoning persuasively showing that the claimed router is operable to retain a data packet, even if a buffer at the input of the processor is able to do so. Instead, Petitioner primarily relies on our preliminary determination, and on Patent Owner’s lack of argument to the contrary. Id. at 11–12. Neither of these act to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to show that MIT2002, in combination with the other applied references, teaches a router operable to retain data packets in the event of a traffic condition. Consequently, we are not persuaded that retention of data in the Raw system occurs at the router’s input buffer. For the above described reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the combined teachings of the applied references of this ground teach or suggest the “each router is operable to retain a data packet in the event of a traffic condition” limitation of [1g]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,355,975 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,355,975 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00633 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable because Lurie, alone or combined with the other cited references, did not teach proactive task retrieval; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Based on the fully developed trial record, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “proactively” and, therefore, we construe this claim term as initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). Beginning with the intrinsic evidence, both parties appear to agree that the ’275 patent does not define the claim term “proactively” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. For example, during the oral hearing, counsel for Amazon indicated that the specification of the ’275 patent provides “some examples” of what it means to act “proactively,” but it does not provide a lexicographic definition. See Tr. 7:8–11:21. In the same vein, during oral argument, counsel for Swarm stated that “[w]e haven’t advocated for anything other than the plain and ordinary meaning of proactively.” Id. at 34:23–24. We” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In its Petition, Amazon argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and about five years of industry or academic research experience in parallel or distributed computing, system architecture, or an equivalent.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–44). Amazon further argues that “[a] post-graduate degree or additional formal education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm does not address the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. That is, we adopt Amazon’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’275 patent and the asserted prior art. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Amazon’s declarant, Dr. Lowenthal, provides testimony that supports our finding above. In his supplemental declaration in support of the Reply, Dr. Lowenthal testifies that, “[c]ertainly, Lurie initially sends an initial notification of ‘one or more tasks . . . becoming available.’ After that, . . . TCW [270] will obtain and process a first task.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 58 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 86) (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 87, 88) (second two alterations in original). He also testifies that the “one initial notification . . . kick[s] off the procedure” because it “informs all registered TCWs [270] that one or more tasks are available.” Id. ¶ 59. We credit the aforementioned testimony of Dr. Lowenthal’s because it is consistent with the disclosures in Lurie that we highlight above, most notably the kickoff notification.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“As we explain in the claim construction section above, we accord the claim term “proactively” an ordinary and customary meaning of initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). See supra Section II.A. Contrary to our construction, Lurie’s TCW 270 only takes a task after receiving a kickoff notification and, therefore, it is not acting proactively. That is, Lurie’s TCW 270 reacts to the kickoff notification that a task is available or otherwise appears in object exchange repository 662 rather than initiates change by seeking a task from object exchange repository 662 without being notified to do so.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,592,275 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00141 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Juniper failed to show claims 1–7 and 9–17 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground because the combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without any communication with the controller.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In its Petition, Juniper argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would’ve had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11. Juniper further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could, alternatively, “have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60, 61). In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm appears to agree with Juniper because it repeats verbatim the same assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art offered by Juniper in its Petition. Compare PO Resp. 11, with Pet. 11. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10. That is, we adopt Juniper’s proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound and, therefore, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply this modified version of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In any event, even if we were to consider Juniper’s downstream theory, we do not find this belated argument persuasive. To support its downstream theory, Juniper relies on the Dr. Weissman’s testimony that “[t]echniques for avoiding [broadcast packets flooding the network] are well known in the art and may include downstream devices dropping, or filtering, broadcast packets to minimize processing load.” Ex. 1031 ¶ 36. We decline to credit this testimony for two reasons. First, apart from generically asserting that dropping or filtering broadcast packets minimizes processing load, Dr. Weissman does not attempt to explain how Leong’s surveying unit would be considered a “downstream device” from a newly added co-processor, much less why Leong’s surveying unit would need to filter or drop a broadcast packet sent by the newly added co-processor. Second, Dr. Weissman does not cite to any underlying evidence to support his testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In any event, we need not construe any of the sixteen claim terms identified by Swarm in its Patent Owner Response because, when evaluating the merits of Juniper’s Petition in light of the arguments and evidence presented by Swarm during trial, the scope and meaning of the sixteen claim terms are not in controversy. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach those particular issues for purposes of deciding whether Juniper has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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))). In our obviousness evaluation below, we address the scope and meaning of the claim term “communication,” as this term pertains to the combined teachings of Leong and AppleTalkBook contested by the parties. More specifically, we address below whether Juniper’s proposed combination of Leong and AppleTalkBook teaches or suggests adding a coprocesser “on a plug-and-play basis without any communication with the controller,” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ’275 patent.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We begin our analysis with the plain language of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Each of these independent claims explicitly requires adding a co-processor “without any communication with the controller.” Ex. 1001, 14:40–44, 15:30–34, 16:30–34 (emphasis added). As we explained in the Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01445, the use of the word “any” precludes both communication with a response and communication without a response. IPR2021-01445, Paper 62 at 25. Turning to the disclosure in the specification of the ’275 patent cited by Juniper, we do not agree that those disclosures support limiting “communication” to only two-way messaging. The relevant passage in the specification states the following: Each cell 12 [is] configured to perform one or a plurality of specialized tasks, as illustrated in the following sequence of events. During a poll phase each cell periodically sends an agent to the task pool until a matching task is found. To facilitate this matching, both the cell and the task pool may be equipped with a transceiver. In the case of the task pool, the transceiver maybe [sic] located in the task pool itself or in the switching fabric to which the task pool is connected. When a task match is found within a task pool, the task pool transmits an acknowledgement to the cell. The next step is the “communication channel” phase. During the communication channel phase, the cell receives the task and begins to execute the task. In one implementation, once the first task is completed, the communication channel is maintained so that the solidar[it]y cell can fetch another task without having to repeat the “poll” and “acknowledge” phase. Ex. 1001, 6:33–48 (emphases added). We fail to see how each cell 12 transmitting an acknowledgement message during the “poll phase” or each cell 12 receiving a task during the “communication channel” phase implicates adding a co-processor “on a plug-and-play basis,” as required by each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Regardless, we do not view the cited disclosure in the specification as limiting the “communication” required by these independent claims to only two-way messaging. Instead, we view the cited disclosure as merely examples of how each cell 12 may communicate with the task pool. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit “has repeatedly ‘cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.’” Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Stated differently, these two examples of transmitting an acknowledgment message and receiving a task in the specification, by themselves, are not enough to prevent a broad interpretation of “communication” that includes, among other things, one-way messaging that does not require a response.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,592,275 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01445 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground because the proposed combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without communication with the controller.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Both Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11; see also PO Resp. 7. The parties alternatively argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Pet. 11 (citing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 67); see also PO Resp. 7. We adopt the parties’ proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “[f]or the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes all terms as having their ordinary and customary meanings.” Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting 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))).” slip op. at 12
- ExcludeDenied
“37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)). Specifically, we stated that “[p]rovided that Patent Owner timely objects to the admissibility of Petitioner’s evidence in accordance with our regulations, we will address such objection at the procedurally appropriate time.” Id. Despite our reminding the parties of the proper procedure for challenging the admissibility of evidence, Patent Owner elected not to do so. Specifically, Patent Owner did not file a timely objection, thereby giving Petitioner an opportunity to supply supplemental evidence to cure the objection. See Pet. Reply 28. Accordingly, Patent Owner forfeited its right to object to evidence, such as AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony, and, as a result, forfeited its request that we exclude the evidence. Instead of following our rules and filing a timely objection, Patent Owner argues in the Response, citing the Federal Rules of Evidence, that we should give limited weight to AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony due to a lack of authenticity. See PO Resp. 8–15. But this is no more than a disguised motion to exclude evidence. Under these circumstances where Patent Owner’s argument is premised on the Federal Rules of Evidence, we see no meaningful difference between excluding the evidence and giving it little weight. Because Petitioner did not file a timely objection to the evidence, we deny Patent Owner’s request to give AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony limited weight.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“We have reviewed the specific examples cited in Patent Owner’s Response. Even if the specific examples cited by Patent Owner were valid complaints, none of them, either alone or in combination, arise to such a level that we would discount the entirety of Dr. Weissman’s testimony. That does not mean that we found all of the testimony in this proceeding, whether provided by Dr. Weissman or Dr. Nelson, credible. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration and provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. In our obviousness analysis below, we specially identify the relevant testimony provided by the parties’ declarants that we find to be credible and not credible.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,852,004 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,852,004 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,539,474 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Hailo Technologies, LLC, D/B/A Bring, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2019 · IPR2017-01865 · APJ Joseph L Dixon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable: the combinations of Penzias, Clagett, and Nimura, with Behr for claims 2–6, did not establish the claimed system for multiple transportation companies.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“flowchart in which a user selects one of the plural companies at step 300. The corresponding disclosure states, “all authorized taxi companies would appear along with other information and/or advertisements.” On the following screen, the user will “Select a Company” 300 which will service the request. See Ex. 1001, 3:58–62. Additionally, the ’619 patent discloses that “[t]he present invention embodies a computerized system which enables customers to select a transportation company, in this example a taxi company, from a menu of all permitted and participating companies.” Id. at 2:26–29. Based on our review of the Specification of the ’619 patent, we determine that the claim term “transportation companies” should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. That is, we construe “company” as a “commercial business.” THE OXFORD DESK DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 146 (American ed. 1997) Ex. 3001. For a “transportation company,” the commercial business would be transportation services. We further clarify that “transportation companies” requires plural companies.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although there are slight differences between the definitions proffered by Petitioner and Patent Owner, the parties agreed that there is no meaningful distinction between them that would change the analysis in this proceeding. See Tr. 26–27. We agree and also find that both definitions are consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record—namely, Penzias. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision, but our conclusion would not differ if we were to accept Patent Owner’s articulation. See Pet. 7.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“speculation and conjecture. While Mr. Andrews speculates that the multiple paths “could represent” several transportation companies, Mr. Andrews provides no evidence to support a finding that Penzias teaches or suggests a user interface for the multiple transportation companies. Consequently, we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony in this regard because it is not supported by the disclosure in Penzias. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based in entitled to little or no weight.”). We have reviewed Petitioner’s analysis, which is rebutted by Patent Owner, and we conclude that the First Alternative based upon the teachings of Penzias alone for the claimed multiple “transportation companies” is deficient because Petitioner has not shown that Penzias teaches or suggests multiple “transportation companies,” but merely shows multiple routes by different drivers of multi-passenger vans all controlled by a single transportation company. As a result, Penzias does not teach or suggest “displaying a list of authorized transportation companies for selection by the operator of the computer,” where the user selects a desired company, followed by displaying the proximate fare for the selected location and payment options honored by the selected company, and then initiating a dispatch call for available taxi from the selected company, as required by the method of independent claim 1. We find that Penzias only provides a process for a single “transportation company” and does not provide any teaching or suggestion to expand the user interface and process for multiple “transportation companies.”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Second, Petitioner showed that, based on the teachings of the applied references, it would have been obvious to combine Penzias, Clagett, and Nimura according to known methods to yield predictable results. Pet., 31–32. The Petition provided adequate reasoning based on rational underpinnings for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the asserted prior art. Pet., 31–32 (citing Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 160–162); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, the Board should reject Patent Owner’s erroneous problem-solution argument about why a POSA would have combined the asserted references. Reply 25–26. Again, we disagree with the Petitioner and find that the proffered combination falls short of merely yielding predictable results. Petitioner has provided insufficient evidence that, at the time of the invention in 1997, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a user interface for multiple transportation companies to deliver instructional messages to the consumer to allow the consumer to select a desired company and provide the relevant claimed information to ultimately dispatch a taxi/transportation vehicle/vehicle for hire from the selected company.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 5,973,619 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,973,619
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.