• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00770 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12, 13, 24, 36, 37, 38, 83, 86, 87, and 132 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted combinations because the evidence did not establish substantial flexibility or motivation for the proposed dielectric substitutions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, with support of its declarant Paul D. Franzon, Ph.D., contends that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the challenge patents “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, material science, or equivalent thereof, and at least 3–5 years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., semiconductor processing.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53). Dr. Franzon’s testimony as to the level of 12 ordinary skill is based on “the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Patent Owner did not propose expressly a particular level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. At the oral hearing, Petitioner indicatedthat there did not seem to be any dispute as to the correct level of ordinary skill. Tr. 112:11–14 (“I don’t think there was any dispute about whether [Dr. Franzon’s proposed level of ordinary skill] was the correct level of skill, although Patent Owner can correct me.”). Having reviewed the prior art asserted in these proceedings (see, e.g., Exs. 1004–07, 1009, 2160), we determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In the context of the Elm 3DS family, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially flexible” is the same as our construction under the Philips standard, which was the standard applied in IPR2016-00386. Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, we presume a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As discussed in detail in the Final Written Decisions in IPR2016-00386, IPR2016-00387, and IPR2016- 00388, the ordinary and customary meaning of “substantially flexible” is “largely able to bend without breaking.” Also as discussed extensively in” slip op. at 14

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

    “same as set forth in IPR2016-00708. Each of the challenged claims in this review require the use of a dielectric having a stress of less than 5 x 108 dynes/cm2 tensile. The evidentiary record in this case with regard to dielectric substitution adds nothing further to the evidentiary record established in IPR2016-00708. For the same reasons set forth in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00708, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed dielectric substitution.” slip op. at 21

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

    “As noted in our claim construction section, above and as referenced in our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00386, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that, in the context of semiconductor substrates, mere thinning is not the same as flexibility—being able to bend without breaking. 20 Although Petitioner presents arguments attempting to demonstrate thinning, there are no arguments that this thinning necessarily results in flexibility. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate that the required “substantial flexibility.” This reason alone sufficiently supports our conclusion. However, we also conclude, as set forth below that for a second, independent reason, Petitioner has not established that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Petitioner has not sufficiently established that one of ordinary skill would have substituted the dielectric material of Leedy ’695 for the various layers proposed for substitution in Hsu. Therefore we do not credit Leedy ’695 as providing any potential “substantial flexibility” to Hsu.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,907,499 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,907,499
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Elm 3ds Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 8, 2017 · IPR2016-00708 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish substantial flexibility or a reason and reasonable expectation of success for the proposed dielectric substitutions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, with support of its declarant Paul D. Franzon, Ph.D., contends that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the challenge patents “would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, material science, or equivalent thereof, and at least 3–5 years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., semiconductor processing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–53). According to Dr. Franzon, his testimony as to the level of ordinary skill is based on considering “the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 59. Patent Owner did not propose expressly a particular level of ordinary skill. See, e.g., generally PO Resp. At the oral hearing, however, Petitioner indicated” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “In the context of the Elm 3DS family, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “substantially flexible” is the same as our construction under the Philips standard. Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, we presume a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As discussed in detail in the Final Written Decisions in IPR2016–00386, IPR2016-00387, and IPR2016–00388, the ordinary and customary meaning of “substantially flexible” is “largely able to bend without breaking.” Also as discussed extensively in those Final Written Decisions, the inventor did not give the term “substantially flexible” a particular meaning in the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The claim at issue here uses the term “substantially flexible” as a modifier of “structure” in the preamble of the claim and as a modifier of “monocrystalline semiconductor layer” in the body of the claim. Thus, a 13 “substantially flexible” structure is a structure that is able to bend without breaking; and a “substantially flexible monocrystalline semiconductor layer” requires a monocrystalline semiconductor layer that is able to bend without breaking.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Similarly, in view of the complex technology involved in integrated circuit fabrication and, particularly and the agreement of both experts that dielectrics have different properties and different methods of forming dielectrics in integrated circuit fabrication result in dielectrics having different properties (as discussed previously), we determine that Petitioner’s contentions and Dr. Franzon’s broad conclusions (Pet. 45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111, 113–14) that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success to be insufficient to meet its burden, which requires a preponderance of evidence. For example, as discussed previously, we find Petitioner’s contention that Leedy ’695 thus discloses that its dielectrics can be easily used in place of other dielectrics to be insufficiently supported by the evidence of record. 27 Accordingly, having considered the Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed in those papers, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to combine the asserted references to arrive at the claimed invention or that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,907,499 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,907,499
• Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01446 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Toshiba did not prove claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 16 unpatentable over Baird and Yoshimoto, or that combination with the ST Datasheet, which was not established as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “As we seek to give the term “DSP” its ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we take into account the Microsoft and IBM dictionary definitions submitted by Optical Devices. We note that each of those dictionaries define a DSP as designed for “high speed” manipulation of data/digital signals. Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. Optical Devices, however, has not directed our attention to evidence establishing what “high speed” encompasses. We note that one of the submitted dictionary definitions characterizes such digital signal manipulation as “real-time.” Ex. 2003. However, the Specification’s disclosure describes that some embodiments can execute real time digital servo algorithms on a DSP. We determine that Optical Devices has not established persuasively that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a DSP requires “high speed” processing achieving this “real time” feature. Indeed, Patent Owner’s “basic” construction for a DSP does not include a “real time” requirement for “real time” processing. See PO Resp. 10 (providing a minimal definition for a DSP). We are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “digital signal processor,” consistent with the Specification, is “an integrated circuit structured and arranged for manipulation of digital signals in accordance with programmed commands, and in a manner that operates faster than a microprocessor.” We do not adopt Optical Devices’ proposal to further characterize further an integrated circuit as “specialized.” We find that proposed modification is superfluous in that our construction describes that the integrated circuit is structured and arranged to achieve a specific function, i.e., manipulation of digital signals and operating faster than a microprocessor.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Optical Devices asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of experience in control systems technology.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 9–11) (emphasis added). Based on our consideration of the record, we find that the evidence as a whole supports Toshiba’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Toshiba’s statement of the ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “that Toshiba has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Toshiba’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 81). However, neither Toshiba nor Toshiba’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is true. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. For example, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and come up with something entirely new. The chip surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151, 3–20 (emphases added). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Id.; See MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (inherency is not to be established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48, 756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citations omitted). Thus, we do not afford Dr. Zech’s unsupported opinions persuasive weight.” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that Toshiba has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Toshiba’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 81). However, neither Toshiba nor Toshiba’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is true. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. For example, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and come up with something entirely new. The chip surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151, 3–20 (emphases added). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Id.; See MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (inherency is not to be established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48, 756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citations omitted). Thus, we do not afford Dr. Zech’s unsupported opinions persuasive weight.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,196,979 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,196,979
• Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01445 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable: Baird did not disclose the required FES and TES determination, and the ST Datasheet was not established as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1001, 13:50–61. From this disclosure, we recognize that the Specification suggests that a DSP operates faster than a microprocessor and, in some embodiments, real time digital servo algorithms can be executed on a DSP. Id. at 53–55. The Specification, however, does not expressly define the term “digital signal processor.” We note the competing views of Dr. de Callafon, on behalf of Patent Owner, and Dr. Zech, on behalf of Petitioner. We also note issues regarding the testimony of each declarant. For example, in some respects, Dr. de Callafon bases his proposed construction of a DSP on features that he asserts one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “most DSP processors have,” as opposed to features that all DSP processors require. Ex. 2008 ¶ 21(a). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describing the design of a DSP, also relied upon by Patent Owner, is unreliable because Dr. Zech testified that he had “no expertise” as to design elements distinguishing a DSP from a general processor. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 35:12–13, 44:12–14. As we seek to give the term “DSP” its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we take into account the Microsoft and IBM dictionary definitions submitted by Patent Owner. We note that each of those dictionaries define a DSP as being designed for “high speed” manipulation of data/digital signals. Ex. 2002; Ex. 2003. Patent Owner, however, has not directed our attention to evidence establishing what “high speed” encompasses. We note also that only one of the submitted dictionary definitions additionally characterizes such digital signal manipulation as “real-time.” Id. at 2003. The Specification, however, discloses that only some embodiments can execute real time digital servo algorithms on a DSP. We determine that Patent Owner has not established persuasively that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a DSP requires “high speed” processing achieving this “real time” feature. Indeed, Patent Owner’s “basic” construction for a DSP does not include a requirement for “real time” processing. See PO Resp. 20 (providing a minimal definition for a DSP). Thus, we are persuaded that that the broadest reasonable intepretation of the term “digital signal processor,” consistent with the Specification, is “an integrated circuit structured and arranged for manipulation of digital signals in accordance with programmed commands, and in a manner that operates faster than a microprocessor.” Patent Owner’s proposal to characterize further an integrated circuit as “specialized” is not well taken. Indeed, we find that proposed modification to be superfluous in that our construction describes that the integrated circuit is structured and arranged to achieve a specific function, i.e., manipulation of digital signals and operating faster than a microprocessor. 2.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner proposes constructions for additional claim phrases without providing any discussion or reference to the Specification in support of those proposed constructions. PO Resp. 12–13. Based on our analysis, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any remaining claim term. Thus, we are not persuaded to adopt those proposed constructions.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ’729 patent as having: (1) a Bachelor’s of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics or a related field and at least two years of additional experience in control system technology, optical disk servo technology, magnetic disk servo technology, or related technologies, either in industry or research[,] or (2) at least a Master’s of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Physics or a related field with coursework in control system technology, optical disk servo technology, magnetic disk servo technology, or related technologies. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 65–66) (emphases added). Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of experience in control systems technology.” PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 9–11) (emphasis added). Based on our consideration of the record, we find that the evidence as a whole supports Petitioner’s broader description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Having considered the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Petitioner’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 82). However, neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is true. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. For example, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and 0 come up with something entirely new. The chip 1 surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151:3–20 (emphases added). Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Id.; see MEHL/Biophile Int’l. Corp., 192 F.3d at 1365 (inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citations omitted). Thus, we do not afford Dr. Zech’s opinions persuasive weight.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,839,729 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,839,729
• Toshiba Corporation v. Optical Devices, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01447 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–39 were not shown unpatentable: Baird did not necessarily disclose determining FES and TES, and the ST Datasheet was not established as publicly accessible prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Baird inherently discloses a DSP configured to determine a FES and a TES from digital signals received by the SCP. In particular, Petitioner’s primary contention with respect to inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Baird must determine a FES and TES in order for the SCP to operate focus and tracking control loops. Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 77). However, neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zech, provides any explanation why that is so. When asked for an explanation during his deposition, Dr. Zech responded in a manner that relied upon a probability that Baird’s SCP determines FES and TES. In particular, the following is an excerpt from Dr. Zech’s deposition: Q Can you explain to me why it is your opinion that it is inherent that a servo control processor in Baird determines a focus error signal and a tracking error signal? A Well, because the way he designed it, it does. And I can’t imagine why somebody, an engineer at Cirrus Logic, would swim against the current and 0 come up with something entirely new. The chip 1 surely would not sell. I know that from pretty broad experience in sales and marketing. Once you tell me optical disk drive -- I’ve explained to you the statistics of it -- 99 percent plus are probably using continuous composite servoing. When you use continuous composite servoing, you need to have a tracking error and a focus error signal. So it’s not much of a leap for me to conclude that that’s what’s going on here. Ex. 2001, 151:3–20 (emphases added); see Tr. 100:13–101:2. Dr. Zech’s deposition testimony describes what functions and systems optical disk drives “are probably using” and that “it’s not much of a leap” for him to conclude what is occuring in Baird with respect to whether error signals are determined Ex. 2001, 151:15–18; see MEHL/Biophile Int’l. Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (inherency is not to be established by probabilities or possibilities). Moreover, both in his declaration and at the deposition, Dr. Zech bases his opinion regarding that issue on assumptions unsupported by evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48, 756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Affidavits expressing an opinion of an expert must disclose the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. . . . Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little to no weight.”) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 705; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65; Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Thus, we do not credit Dr. Zech’s unsupported opinions with persuasive weight.” slip op. at 29

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

    “As we seek to give the term “digital signal processor” its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, we take into account the Microsoft and IBM dictionary definitions submitted by Patent Owner. Ex. 2002, 145; Ex. 2003, 198. We note that each of those dictionaries define a DSP as being designed for “high speed” manipulation of data/digital signals. Id. Patent Owner, however, has not directed our attention to evidence establishing what “high speed” encompasses. See Tr. 98:12–23; see also id. at 95:10–96:3 (Petitioner’s argument that speed governed by function). We also note one of the submitted dictionary definitions characterizes “high speed,” such that digital signal manipulation as “real-time.” Ex. 2003, 198. Another dictionary definition simply includes “high speed.” Ex. 2002, 145. However, the Specification discloses that only some embodiments can execute real time digital servo algorithms on a DSP. See Ex. 1001, col. 13, ll. 38–42. We determine that Patent Owner has not established persuasively that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a DSP requires “high speed” processing achieving this “real time” feature. Indeed, Patent Owner’s “basic” construction for a DSP does not include a requirement for “real time” processing. See PO Resp. 16 (providing a minimal definition for a DSP). We are persuaded, however, that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “digital signal processor,” consistent with the Specification and the ordinary and customary meaning of the term as understood at the time of the invention by a person of ordinary skill in the art, is “an integrated circuit structured and arranged for manipulation of digital signals in accordance with programmed commands, and in a manner that operates faster than a microprocessor.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to characterize further an integrated circuit as “specialized.” We determine that proposed modification is superfluous in that our construction describes that the integrated circuit is structured and arranged to achieve a specific function, i.e., manipulation of digital signals and operation faster than a microprocessor. B.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. PO Resp. 30–31 (quoting In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added) (citations omitted)). Petitioner argues that, because Baird discloses that the servo control processor performs focus and tracking control loops (Ex. 1003, col. 5 l. 63–col. 6, l. 11), “it is necessarily the case that a focus error and tracking error signal are generated” in order to perform that function (Pet. 42–43). See Ex. 1006 ¶ 77; Tr. 20:21–23:5. According to Petitioner and, its declarant, Dr. Zech, one of ordinary skill in the art would” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “qualify as a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the reference must be shown to have been “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” prior to the earliest effective filing date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “Because there are many ways in which a reference may be disseminated to the interested public, ‘public accessibility’ has been called the touchstone in determining whether a reference constitutes a ‘printed publication’ bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was “disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Dkt. Nos. 2015-1391, 2015-1393, 2015- 1394, slip op. at 28–29 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2016).” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,416,651 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,416,651
• Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2015 · IPR2014-00690 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 4–6, 8–20, and 23–29 not shown unpatentable because LT1932 was not proven publicly accessible before the priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “Reimund “[t]he documents were made publicly available shortly after the footer dates were applied.” Id. A “printing date” is not, however, without more, sufficient evidence of public accessibility as of that particularly date. See e.g., LG Elecs., Case IPR2015-00329 (Paper 13, 13) (Declarant’s “unsupported opinion that EIFUFAL501 ‘was more than likely published on or about March 24, 1998’ (id.) is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that EIFUFAL501 was published before June 1, 1998.”) The bare testimony of Mr. Reimund that the printing date “‘1201’ indicates that the datasheet was made public, and Linear customers and members of the public were able to access the datasheet no later than December 2001” (Ex. 1012 ¶ 6) is not persuasive evidence that the “printing date” can be equated to the publication date. In his Declaration, Mr. Reimund stated that such documents “were made publicly available shortly after the footer dates were applied.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Mr. Reimund’s testimony, however, provides no further explanation as to what time period, hours, days or months etc., is encompassed by the term “shortly after.” Giving some weight to Mr. Reimund’s testimony that it was common business practice for documents to bear a printing date such as “1201” indicative of a printing date of December 2001, his opinion that LT1932 was publicly available “shortly after” that date is vague and insufficient by itself to demonstrate that LT1932 was accessible to the public prior to the filing of the ’474 provisional application on March 28, 2002. Mr. Reimund further states that “Linear maintains and I have reviewed a database reflecting the dates that such documents were made publicly available.” Id. ¶ 5. The database referred to by Mr. Reimund is not part of the record in these proceedings and this explicit reference to purported important corroborating evidence is ambiguous without the specific database and dates he reviewed. Overall, Mr. Reimund’s testimony does not state any facts or circumstances relating to specific dates, or even a general time frame, after December 2001 that LT1932 was in fact publicly accessible. Mr. Reimund’s testimony alleging that LT1932 was publicly available “shortly after” December 2001, does not sufficiently temporally link the December 2001 printing date to the alleged public availability of the reference prior to March 28, 2002. Consequently, on this record we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that LT1932 is a printed publication available before the priority date.” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the priority date, for purposes of this Decision, is March 28, 2002, the filing date of the ’474 provisional application that became the ’275 patent.10 Patent Owner provides persuasive evidence that 10 Patent Owner provides evidence of conception and reduction to practice of the invention claimed in the ’275 patent prior to December 31, 2001, and also evidence of diligence leading to the filing of the ’474 provisional application on March 28, 2002. See PO Resp. 35–57. Based on this the 60/368,474 (“’474”) provisional application contains essentially identical disclosure to that of the ’275 patent and that each of the claims at issue is supported by disclosure in the ’474 provisional application. PO Resp. 54– 57, compare Ex. 2016, with Ex. 1001; Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 54–55; Ex. 2028 ¶ 90.” slip op. at 17

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “to exclude is properly related to the admissibility of evidence (e.g., authenticity or hearsay). See Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd., CBM2013-00005, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013) (Paper 56). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is directed, however, to the sufficiency of evidence concerning whether or not LT1932 is prior art to the claimed subject matter in the ’275 patent. Patent Owner argues in its Motion that “[t]he Petition asserted, without evidentiary support, that Exhibit 1004 ‘was published at least as early as 2001.’” Mot. 2 (citing Pet. 5). Although Patent Owner states that Petitioner does not establish the necessary “foundation,” the arguments presented by Patent Owner are directed specifically to the sufficiency of the copyright date of 2001 as evidence of a publication date, and hence public accessibility, of LT1932. See id. at 2–4. Arguments related to whether a copyright date is sufficient evidence of public accessibility so that LT1932 is, or is not, a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are properly presented in a reply rather than in a motion to exclude. With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Reimund’s Declaration should be excluded as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 402, this admissibility objection is based on Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s evidence is insufficient to establish LT1932 as prior art where Patent Owner has provided evidence of conception prior to December 31, 2001. Mot. 5. For example, Patent Owner argues in its Motion that “Petitioner cannot carry its burden to show that the claims of the patent are invalid unless it presents sufficient evidence in the Petition itself that a relied upon reference is prior art to the ’275 Patent.” Id. (emphasis added) (original emphasis omitted). Such an argument addressing the sufficiency of Petitioner’s temporal evidence is misplaced in a motion to exclude. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is denied.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsDenied

    “Renewed Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) on June 12, 2015. Accompanying the Motion, the parties filed a true copy of a settlement agreement (Ex. 2040) along with a joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential (Paper 40), to be kept separate from the patent file pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). Based on the facts of this case and because the settlement was not concluded until after the oral hearing and we had substantially decided the merits of the proceeding, we exercise our discretion not to terminate this proceeding. The Renewed Joint Motion to Terminate Proceedings is denied.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,539,275 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,539,275
• Foursquare Labs, Inc. v. Silver State Intellectual Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2015 · IPR2014-00159 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because Fraccaroli does not disclose all claim limitations arranged or combined in the same way.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “example when reviewing an allegedly anticipating prior art reference. Reply 7 (citing Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369 n.5). Nevertheless, we still must determine whether the reference discloses all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, even while looking at the reference as a whole. See Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Claim 1 is a method claim reciting specific steps. Limitation [f] recites the step of “receiving, from the user, additional data regarding the user, the additional data being related to the geographic location of the user.” In Fraccaroli, only the convention application includes this step, with the information in the event field corresponding to the “additional data” recited in the claim. See Ex. 1003, 8:57–9:5. For limitation [h], which recites the step of “receiving from the user an access list of possible requesters of the data and the additional data,” Petitioner relies on information provided by the user in Fraccaroli’s closest friend application, i.e., a list of known persons with whom the user wishes to share information. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:44–48). Notably, Petitioner does not contend that the user in Fraccaroli’s convention application places the information center or registration desk on an access list. See Pet. 30–31; Tr. 60:7–11. Thus, the convention application does not include the step of receiving an “access list” from the user (limitation [h]), and the closest friend application does not include the step of receiving “additional data” from the user (limitation [f]). For limitation [j]—the step of providing location data and additional data to possible requesters on the access list—Petitioner cites Fraccaroli’s description of message signals sent after a match is made. Pet. 31–32. Petitioner contends that message signals containing information from a user’s matching profile are sent in any of the embodiments disclosed in Fraccaroli. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:40–67). Nevertheless, Fraccaroli does not describe a process that includes both the steps of receiving “additional data” from a user and receiving an “access list” from a user. Therefore, even if message signals are sent in all embodiments or applications described in Fraccaroli, the reference does not disclose a process in which message signals including “additional data” are sent to possible requesters on an “access list,” as set forth in limitation [j]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Fraccaroli discloses all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in claim 1 and, thus, has not shown that Fraccaroli anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 13

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

    “example when reviewing an allegedly anticipating prior art reference. Reply 7 (citing Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369 n.5). Nevertheless, we still must determine whether the reference discloses all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, even while looking at the reference as a whole. See Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Claim 1 is a method claim reciting specific steps. Limitation [f] recites the step of “receiving, from the user, additional data regarding the user, the additional data being related to the geographic location of the user.” In Fraccaroli, only the convention application includes this step, with the information in the event field corresponding to the “additional data” recited in the claim. See Ex. 1003, 8:57–9:5. For limitation [h], which recites the step of “receiving from the user an access list of possible requesters of the data and the additional data,” Petitioner relies on information provided by the user in Fraccaroli’s closest friend application, i.e., a list of known persons with whom the user wishes to share information. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:44–48). Notably, Petitioner does not contend that the user in Fraccaroli’s convention application places the information center or registration desk on an access list. See Pet. 30–31; Tr. 60:7–11. Thus, the convention application does not include the step of receiving an “access list” from the user (limitation [h]), and the closest friend application does not include the step of receiving “additional data” from the user (limitation [f]). For limitation [j]—the step of providing location data and additional data to possible requesters on the access list—Petitioner cites Fraccaroli’s description of message signals sent after a match is made. Pet. 31–32. Petitioner contends that message signals containing information from a user’s matching profile are sent in any of the embodiments disclosed in Fraccaroli. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:40–67). Nevertheless, Fraccaroli does not describe a process that includes both the steps of receiving “additional data” from a user and receiving an “access list” from a user. Therefore, even if message signals are sent in all embodiments or applications described in Fraccaroli, the reference does not disclose a process in which message signals including “additional data” are sent to possible requesters on an “access list,” as set forth in limitation [j]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Fraccaroli discloses all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in claim 1 and, thus, has not shown that Fraccaroli anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 13

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “Subsequent to institution, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing, Paper 8, which we granted for the limited purpose of modifying our construction of one claim term, Paper 13 (“Reh’g Dec.”). Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response, accompanied by a Declaration of Dr. Craig Rosenberg. Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response, along with a Declaration of Mr. Chris Schmandt. Paper 17 (“Reply”); Ex. 1027. We held an oral hearing on February 24, 2015. A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record. Paper 27 (“Tr.”).” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 7,343,165 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,343,165
• QSC Audio Products, LLC v. Crest Audio, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00129 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 13 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the petitioner did not establish a reason to modify the prior art to calculate impedance or power from detected current and voltage.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “meaning of the patent law. The touchstone of whether a particular document is a publication under the patent law is whether it was available to those of ordinary skill in the art to which it pertains.” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner’s arguments conflate two separate issues — (1) whether Gittleman is authentic, and (2) whether it constitutes a publication under the patent law. Gittleman includes the AES logo. The cover page further identifies a specific address for AES for the purpose of obtaining additional preprints, and states that reproduction of the article is prohibited without permission from the Audio Engineering Society Journal. Ex. 1009. There is no dispute that this document is a preprint of a paper intended for presentation at their respective AES conventions. Therefore, having considered and weighed the distinctive characteristics of the article and the circumstances surrounding its retrieval from the AES E-Library, we find that Gittleman is what it appears to be — a paper categorized by the Audio Engineering Society as a “preprint.” Petitioner has met its authentication burden under Fed. R. Evid. 901 and 902. Whether the self-authenticated “preprint” qualifies as a “publication” under the patent law is a separate matter.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had the following education and experience: Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and at least some practical experience with the design and testing of electronic amplifiers. Ex. 1003 ¶ 15. Patent Owner’s declarant agrees generally with the above assertion, asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had one year of experience with the design and testing of electronic amplifiers. Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. The disagreement appears to be that the Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would be aware of amplifier designs useful at frequencies ranging from audio frequencies to radio frequencies (RF) (Ex. 1003 ¶ 16), while Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would not have practical experience with amplifier designs useful at frequencies ranging from audio frequencies to radio frequencies (RF) (Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–30). We credit Petitioner’s declarant, and agree that a person of ordinary skill would be at least aware of amplifier designs useful at radio frequencies (RF) based at least on that person’s educational background. Ex. 1003 ¶ 16. We determine the obviousness issues guided by the evidence of the level of ordinary skill in the art presented by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). From the Porambo reference, which Patent Owner does not contest is in the field of endeavor of the invention in question, we understand that the level of ordinary skill in the art, at a minimum, pertains to audio amplifiers and the incorporation of DSPs in audio amplifiers. See Ex. 1005, Abstract (describing the features of the audio amplifiers and DSPs at issue in Porambo).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “As to his audio amplifier experience, Dr. Ellis completed a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering with numerous years of experience as a research assistant researching audio signal processing, sound synthesis and analysis. Ex. 1004, 1. Dr. Ellis stated during his deposition that, although he is an expert in digital signal processing (Ex. 2002, 154:15–16), he has experience in the design of amplifiers from his undergraduate education. Id. at 124:7–20. Dr. Ellis designed and tested microphone amplifiers as a post-doctoral student at the Computer Science Institute at Berkeley, id. at 111:13–113:4, and is currently designing amplifiers that can drive speakers with the goal of incorporating these into his professional work. Id. at 120:4–121:12. We also note, as discussed above, the field of the ’542 patent invention is related to audio amplifiers generally and the incorporation of DSPs. We find that although Dr. Ellis is less qualified than Mr. Cordell in the area of amplifier design, he is qualified sufficiently to testify about audio amplifiers as they relate to DSPs. As to his alleged bias, Patent Owner points to Dr. Ellis’s testimony that “DSP revolution” has occurred, where DSP solutions were preferred over analog solutions. PO Resp. 20–23. We do not agree with Patent Owner that this indicates that he is biased toward believing that “any DSP application that replaces an analog application is obvious.” See PO Resp. 23. As to his alleged use of the wrong standard for obviousness, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Ellis did not evaluate the prior art from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because apparently he did not use the words “at the time of invention” when discussing the standard in his declaration. PO Resp. 23–24. We are not persuaded by this argument. Patent Owner also argues that Dr. Ellis must himself be a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 24. Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive because, to testify as an expert under FRE 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Ellis is qualified in the pertinent art.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 5,652,542 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,652,542
• Avaya Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2014 · IPR2013-00071 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6 and 9 were not shown unpatentable because Matsuno did not establish the claimed low level current, and the obviousness ground relied on that same missing teaching.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Knox in his analysis. For example, Avaya contends that Dr. Knox’s assumption for line resistance (247 ohms) and subscriber service area (4945 feet) are lower than the ISDN standards for North America (1300 ohms and 18,000 feet, respectively). Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 18-23). Dr. Knox, however, explains in his declaration how he calculated the line resistance and subscriber service area, based on figures from Matsuno itself and other assumptions that Avaya does not challenge. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 111-14. Avaya does not explain sufficiently why the identified standards would apply necessarily to the system disclosed in Matsuno. Further, Matsuno does not disclose the actual length for its digital subscriber line. Thus, some assumption must be made, and we are not persuaded that Dr. Knox’s assumptions are unreasonable under the circumstances. Avaya further argues that Dr. Knox’s assumption of a maximum power requirement of 1.1 watts for the NT1 and DTE is unreasonable because it is based on a specification for a Cisco “Class 1” device not introduced until 15 years after Matsuno. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 24-25). In addition, Avaya contends that Dr. Knox admitted on cross-examination that Cisco “Class 2” or “Class 3” devices would not be “guaranteed” to operate based on Matsuno’s low voltage power supply. Id. at 2-3 (citing Ex. 1041 ¶¶ 27-31; Ex. 1028 at 54:12-24). Although Dr. Knox bases his “conservative” power requirement assumption on a device introduced later in time, we cannot say that the assumption is incorrect or unfounded given the lack of detailed disclosure in Matsuno. Again, because Matsuno does not state expressly the power required by the NT1 and DTE, some assumption must be made. Avaya does not explain sufficiently why the “Class 2” and “Class 3” devices would be any better for making that assumption than the “Class 1” device identified by Network-1. Nor did Avaya and Dr. Zimmerman include any such analysis in the Petition and initial declaration. For the reasons explained above, we find Dr. Knox’s analysis persuasive. We also note, as a final matter, that none of the points raised by Dr. Zimmerman in his reply declaration (Exhibit 1041) were made in his initial declaration (Exhibit 1011) served with the Petition, or in the Petition itself. Unlike Dr. Knox, Dr. Zimmerman did not analyze the disclosure of Matsuno in detail and prepare a technical analysis explaining why the identified current is or is not a “low level current.”8 We have reviewed Dr. Zimmerman’s new analysis only to determine whether it refutes the points made by Dr. Knox in his declaration. We have not considered it as part of Avaya’s attempt to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012); Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,620 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Oppositions and replies may rely upon appropriate evidence to support the positions asserted. Reply evidence, however, must be responsive 8 Dr. Zimmerman states in his reply declaration that, in forming his opinion that Matsuno discloses a “low level current,” he “applied the Board’s broadest reasonable construction” from our Decision on Institution in this proceeding. Ex. 1041 ¶ 16. Dr. Zimmerman, however, did not provide an interpretation for “low level current” in his initial declaration, and our Decision on Institution was entered after Avaya filed Dr. Zimmerman’s initial declaration. and not merely new evidence that could have been presented earlier to support the movant’s motion.”).” slip op. at 27

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Matsuno discloses “delivering a low level current from said main power source to the access device over said data signaling pair,” as recited in claim 6. It is Avaya’s burden to establish that Matsuno discloses the “low level current” step. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.”). Avaya’s position, as argued in the Petition, is that the current generated from low voltage V2 (-48 V) in Matsuno is a “low level current.” Pet. 20-21, 24. Thus, Avaya must show sufficient proof, amounting to a preponderance of the evidence, that such current is a “low level current,” which we interpret to mean a current (e.g., approximately 20 mA) that is sufficiently low that, by itself, it will not operate the access device. Avaya has not done so.” slip op. at 15

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

    “device over said data signaling pair,” as recited in claim 6. It is Avaya’s burden to establish that Matsuno discloses the “low level current” step. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.”). Avaya’s position, as argued in the Petition, is that the current generated from low voltage V2 (-48 V) in Matsuno is a “low level current.” Pet. 20-21, 24. Thus, Avaya must show sufficient proof, amounting to a preponderance of the evidence, that such current is a “low level current,” which we interpret to mean a current (e.g., approximately 20 mA) that is sufficiently low that, by itself, it will not operate the access device. Avaya has not done so.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In its Petition, Avaya relies on De Nicolo as teaching the “providing” step of claim 6, including the claimed devices of a data node, access device, data signaling pair, and power sources. Pet. 36-42. Avaya relies on Matsuno as teaching the remaining steps, including “delivering a low level current from said main power source to the access device over said data signaling pair.” Id. at 36-43. Avaya does not contend that delivery of a “low level current” would have been obvious in view of the combination of De Nicolo and Matsuno. For the reasons explained above in Section II.B, we are not persuaded that Matsuno teaches delivery of a “low level current.” Therefore, Avaya has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 6, and claim 9 depending therefrom, would have been obvious over De Nicolo and Matsuno.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,218,930 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,218,930

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.