- Configit A/S v. Versata Development Group, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01055 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 9–19 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations of Oracle1, Oracle2, and the additional references listed for each ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer or Electrical Engineering, Engineering Science, an engineering major with a significant computational component, or a similar discipline, or with at least two years of research or experience in configurable systems including testing.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Patent Owner argues that “[t]here may be some differences between this and the correct level of skill in the art, but those differences will not affect this case at this stage,” such that Patent Owner applies the proposed level of skill in the art without agreeing to it. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35–37). We continue to find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Dec. 6.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“With respect to this rationale, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. The first part of the claim construction, namely rules not being properly defined and “produc[ing] an undesired effect,” does not specify an error being “internal” to the configuration engine. The specification provides that such a configuration error “may occur when a rule or series of rules is not properly defined and produces an undesired effect, such as the exclusion of a part that should be selectable” (Ex. 1001, 1:54–61, emphasis added), but the latter clause provides only one example of the undesired effect. While it seems clear that “internal” errors may result in a “configuration error,” we are not persuaded that the specification limits the term to only such errors. Further, the recitation in the specification that the invention is concerned with configuration errors in a system for configuring products describes generally the context of such configuration errors, and not that they need to be explicitly “in” the system. As such, we are not persuaded that “configuration errors,” as recited in the instant claims must be limited to errors contained in the configuration engine.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Looking at all of the evidence presented and taking the arguments of the parties into consideration, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Oracle1 and Oracle2 were publicly available to serve as art under § 102(a). We further determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the references were published at dates consistent with the evidence and testimony submitted, with the publication date for Oracle1 as April 30, 2000 and with the publication date for Oracle2 as March 31, 2000.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“arguments. We find it curious that Patent Owner has not polled its own expert declarant or provided other evidence such as a survey of the appropriate literature at the time that the application that resulted in the ’766 Patent was filed to provide a showing of what the appropriate understanding of “configuration error” would have been. Looking to the examples cited in Dr. Woods testimony, they are purely exemplary, and he is certainly not definitive, as Patent Owner appears to acknowledge, when using the term “configuration error.” Patent Owner seeks to have us give weight to the portions that seem to support its understanding of the claim term, but give less weight to portions that do not, asserting the latter to be guided only by hindsight. This does not even address Patent Owner’s other assertions that Dr. Woods declaration should be entitled to little weight because it is “incomplete.” PO Resp. 37–39. In sum, according to Patent Owner, we should pick and choose aspects of Dr, Wood’s testimony to support Patent Owner’s contention, where the overall declaration should be given little weight. Looking at the totality of Dr. Wood’s testimony and his deposition testimony (Exs. 1002, 2005), we are not persuaded that it supports the proposition that Patent Owner relies upon to illustrate, namely that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator. Exemplary of this, Dr Wood avers that “[t]hroughout my Declaration I provide context of other configuration errors that would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patent. They can include syntax types of errors, semantic errors, logical errors, logical rule errors, as examples.” Ex. 2005, 59:22–60:05. Petitioner points out that Dr. Wood cited examples from Exhibits 1006, 1033, 1046, and 1050 pertaining to “configuration errors,” and those citations are not limited to those that would have been internal to the configurator. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–41, 48–49). As such, we are not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence before us that those of skill in the art would have known that configuration errors are internal to the configurator.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 6,836,766 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,836,766 - Darfon Electronics Corp. v. Michael ShipmanInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-01008 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the asserted art cumulative of art previously presented to the Office and no material Office error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use [a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in twelve grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 7). Generally, Patent Owner contends that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims (see Prelim. Resp.). We do not reach whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. For reasons discussed below, we discretionarily deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,942,581 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 for both § 103 grounds based on Muthukumarasamy alone and with Hayward.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. (Interim Procedure 3, 9). Here, Petitioner has filed a stipulation: Petitioner has stipulated that if the Board institutes IPR on this Petition, it will not pursue in the related district court proceeding “any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised” during this proceeding. (Pet. Reply to POPR 4 (citing Interim Procedure 3; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18‒19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020); 35 U.S.C. § 315(d); Ex. 1017) (alteration in original)). Thus, in light of Petitioner’s stipulation, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c) Preliminary Determination Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a “person of skill in the art (‘POSA’) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45–49)). Petitioner further asserts “[w]ith more education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less more experience can substitute for formal education” (id.). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion (see Prelim. Resp. 24). Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ528 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 12) with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of educational experience indefinitely without an upper bound, i.e. “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that we “need not construe any claims” to resolve this controversy and that it “adopts” Patent Owner’s “proposed plain and ordinary meaning for all terms [from] the parallel district court action” (Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 50; Ex. 1014)). Patent Owner does not assert any particular claim construction at this stage in the proceeding (Prelim. Resp. 24). On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,782,528 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 6–8 for both asserted obviousness grounds: Muthukumarasamy alone and Muthukumarasamy with Hayward.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Interim Procedure 9. Here, Petitioner has filed a stipulation: Petitioner has stipulated that if the Board institutes IPR on this Petition, it will not pursue in the related district court proceeding “any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised” during this proceeding. Paper 7 at 4 (citing Interim Procedure 3; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020); 35 U.S.C. § 315(d); Ex. 1017) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ʼ289 Patent is unpatentable. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes is instituted on all the challenged claims with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of the ’289 Patent is instituted commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is given of the institution of a trial.” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion. See Prelim. Resp. 21. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ289 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 14) with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of educational experience indefinitely without an upper bound, i.e. “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that we “need not construe any claims to resolve [this] controversy” and that it “adopts” Patent Owner’s “proposed plain and ordinary meaning for all terms [from] the parallel district court action.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1014). Patent Owner does not assert any particular claim construction at this stage in the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 21. On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,904,289 - Platinum Optics Technology Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00631 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, 14, 16–21, and 23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed hydrogenated silicon properties.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Supported by Mr. Willey’s testimony, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with at least 5 years of experience in optical coating design and the manufacturing of optical filters, including various deposition techniques.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66–68). According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to coating design and manufacturing) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical thin film design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). Patent Owner neither directly addresses Petitioner’s proposal nor provides its own proposal. See Tr. 35:15–18 (Patent Owner confirming for the record that it has not proposed a different level of ordinary skill than Petitioner’s proposal). Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the prior art presented. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We accordingly adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the statements Dr. Clemens made under oath in his Declaration, we find that he qualifies as a person having at least ordinary skill in the art according to our adopted definition. The questions Petitioner raises about Dr. Clemens’s qualifications were insufficiently explored on cross-examination to impeach that testimony. With respect to Petitioner’s further complaint that Dr. Clemens “did not review all the evidence in rendering his opinions, did not select the materials he reviewed, and did no independent research on the question of enablement,” we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner cites no authority for the propositions that expert witnesses must review all exhibits or perform independent research. Sur-reply 27. Indeed, we do not find it particularly unusual for an expert witness to focus his analysis and opinions on specific issues identified by counsel, and Dr. Clemens properly discloses the underlying facts and data upon which his opinions are based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We thus accord due weight to Dr. Clemens’s testimony.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “the claims do not need an express construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding” but nevertheless “provides its proposed interpretations of two terms [namely, ‘center wavelength’ and ‘passband’] to clarify how Petitioner is applying the prior art to the claims.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms, and appears generally to treat the terms in a manner consistent with Petitioner’s proposals. We conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim term. See 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))).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“One difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that it treats the refractive index and extinction coefficient as independent variables in its argument. But the prior art is clear that the adjusting the hydrogen content of Si:H to achieve a desired extinction coefficient necessarily affects the refractive index—and, as we discuss above, that such adjustments do so in a direction counterproductive to the combination of parameters the inventors sought. And we agree with Patent Owner that the refractive index and extinction coefficient “are not parameters subject to simple adjustment, but properties resulting from the parameters of the fabrication process.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 121–122; Ex. 1016, Figs. 2–3). At the Oral Hearing, Petitioner conceded that Patent Owner’s characterization is accurate when considering the hydrogenated silicon material. See Tr. 65:7– 12. When Petitioner refers to the refractive index and extinction coefficient as result-effective variables, Petitioner means that those parameters are variables that can affect the properties of the claimed optical filter. See id. at 64:6–65:12. As we note above, Petitioner’s argument thus presumes that the refractive index and extinction coefficient can be independently adjusted to achieve desired filter properties—but the asserted prior art teaches against such independence because the known method of adjusting the hydrogen content of Si:H not only affects both the refractive index and extinction coefficient, but does so in a manner counterproductive to the inventors’ objective.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 9,354,369 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,354,369 - PTAB · Sep 30, 2022 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review on claims 1, 2, and 5–9 under both §103 grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition (Interim Procedure 3, 9). Here, Petitioner has filed a stipulation: Petitioner has stipulated that if the Board institutes IPR on this Petition, it will not pursue in the related district court proceeding “any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised” during this proceeding. (Pet. Reply to POPR 4 (citing Interim Procedure 3; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18‒19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020); 35 U.S.C. § 315(d); Ex. 1017) (alteration in original)). Thus, in light of Petitioner’s stipulation, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ251 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 13) with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of educational experience indefinitely without an upper bound, i.e. “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d art)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“particular media player for playing the video content,” as recited in claim 1 (Pet. 34–41). On the record before us, we determine Petitioner supports that combination with adequate rationale, including that the combination “facilitate[s] the source-agnostic presentation of internet content” and “facilitate[s] presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages” (id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 102); see id. 15–18). Accordingly, based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches or suggests “receiving, in the server system, one or more signals from the personal computing device, the one or more signals . . . identifying a particular media player for playing the video content,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Astronics Test Systems, Inc. v. Teradyne, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 20, 2022 · IPR2021-00350 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Schinabeck; the Board did not reach the Miyamoto and Frame grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art with minor modification (Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 20). In particular, we removed the qualifier “at least” from the education level and from the experience level, because the qualifier introduces ambiguity. Patent Owner does not dispute this determination of the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (PO Resp. 8). Thus, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have had (i) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and (ii) one year of experience with testing of electronic equipment. We determine this asserted level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’479 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“execute a user program, the test equipment comprising” is the preamble and that it is limiting (Ex. 1003, 13:57–58; PO Resp. 9). In particular, Patent Owner contends, “the preamble of claim 1 [is] limiting because it serves as antecedent basis for multiple terms in the body of the claim, and it supplies ‘essential structure’ of the claimed invention” (PO Resp. 9). Petitioner does not address this contention (see Pet. Reply 4–5). We agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting because the body of the claim refers to the user program as well as the automatic test equipment (Ex. 1003, 13:57–58, 14:14–17; see Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ([D]ependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis may limit claim scope because it indicates a reliance on both the preamble and claim body to define the claimed invention”)). Patent Owner asserts the following limitation, “a channel circuit having a signal connection point adapted to be coupled to a signal line of a unit under test to receive an input signal having a value” (Ex. 1003, 13:58–61), “although formatted within the same paragraph as the preamble[,] is not actually part of the preamble, but rather part of the body of the claim” (PO Resp. 10). However, further in its argument, Patent Owner flips its statement in arguing “input signal having a value” and contends this is a “requirement[] of the preamble” (id. at 11). Petitioner’s contentions are only directed to the limitation (Pet. Reply 4–5).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Initially, we note the claim recites “a channel circuit having a signal connection point adapted to be coupled to a signal line of a unit under test to receive an input signal having a value” (Ex. 1003, 13:58–61), Thus, due to the recitation, we determine the input signal could be either that the signal connection point receives an input signal or the channel circuit receives an input signal (id.). The next limitation recites the comparison sub-circuit has “a signal input . . . wherein each of the comparison sub-circuits is adapted to produce a comparison output signal at the comparison output having a value input signal” (id. at 13:62–14:3). The claim does not recite that the “signal input” receives “the input signal.” Nevertheless, in light of the claim language and the Specification and because Petitioner has contended both interpretations are shown, we interpret the recited “input signal” as the signal received from the UUT. The portion of the ’479 Patent describing, in part, Figure 1, cited by Patent Owner discloses ATE 139 includes multiple instruments that may generate and measure signals. A host computer 120 executes a software program that controls operation of each of the instruments. Host computer 120 may be programmed to analyze these outputs to determine whether the system under test 189 is operating properly. Such programming is traditionally a part of a user program and drives programmed values and compares measured values to expected values on one or more signal lines connected to the UUT. These steps may be programmed for multiple lines for multiple test cycles (Ex. 1003, 3:32–51; PO Sur-reply 3). The ’479 Patent further describes an “ATE . . . provide[s] stimulus to . . . the UUT and then measure[s] the output to determine if the UUT has performed to its specifications” (Ex. 1003, 1:30–33; PO Sur-reply 3). Thus, these descriptions support both interpretations. Nevertheless, the ’479 Patent describes a signal being supplied and compared to expected values. Accordingly, we interpret “an input signal” as being the signal received from a unit under test (UUT).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We determine Schinabeck teaches the structure of the comparison sub-circuits recited in claim element 1a. Indeed, given that switches and comparators were known (Tr. 35:5–8; Ex. 1026, 17:17–18:8, 30:16–22), we determine switching certain switches on or off is a switch performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an element (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)). Thus, turning switches off or on in Schinabeck’s circuitry, would not have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art” (see Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19)). A skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007)). An ordinarily skilled artisan “must be presumed to know something” about the art “apart from what the references disclose” (In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962)). We further credit Dr. Wicker that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that switch K3a can be opened or closed depending upon the desired test set-up” and “by definition, switches are controlled to be open or closed” (Ex. 1001 ¶ 90). And again, Schinabeck contemplates use of the circuitry as recited, as described in claim 10 discussed supra. We thus are persuaded that Schinabeck teaches or at least suggests limitation 1a). We are also not persuaded Petitioner used impermissible hindsight reconstruction as the circuitry elements in Schinabeck are being used as was known to be used for the purpose of “monitoring response signals during automated testing of any other circuit elements –– Petitioner is relying on closing switches in the disclosed circuity of Schinabeck (Pet. 25–27). Additionally, Schinabeck discloses coupling comparison circuits to the same response signal (Ex. 1008, 11:49–53, 12:56–13:7, 4:49–66 and thus, Patent Owner’s contention that this grouping is “not any ‘desired’ configuration for functional or parametric testing” in Schinabeck is not supported by Schinabeck’s disclosure.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 7,395,479 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,395,479 - PTAB · Apr 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00035 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claim 1 on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claim unpatentable over each asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(Pet. 11). Generally, Patent Owner contends that the Petition should be denied (see Prelim. Resp.). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the challenged claims is not patentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in July 2003 would have had a working knowledge of the network communications art that is pertinent to the ’066 Patent, including network security. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa (Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–19)). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s assertion and further asserts a “higher level of education (e.g., a Master’s degree) may make up for less work experience, and additional work experience may make up for less education” (Prelim. Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–22)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s construction. Patent Owner’s arguments ignore significant claim language of claim 1 that contradicts Patent Owner’s proposed construction, instead focusing on tying to equate broad, ordinary terms — “utilization” with “applying” and “across” with “to” (see id. at 16–21). In particular, Patent Owner ignores the portion of the limitation which recites “cause utilization of different occurrence mitigation actions of diverse occurrence mitigation types, including a firewall-based occurrence mitigation type and a other occurrence mitigation type, across the plurality of devices” (emphasis added). To aid in understanding the meaning of “a firewall-based occurrence mitigation type,” we turn to the disclosure of the ’066 Patent (see Ex. 1001). The ’066 Patent includes a detailed disclosure which contradicts Patent Owner’s argument that the limitation at issue excludes mitigation actions of a network defense system providing firewall functionality.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“intrusion functionality 116 detects . . .an attempt from outside the network 14 to exploit [a] noted vulnerability (for example, a certain IP address is noted as being a source of traffic relating to the IIS buffer overflow vulnerability as detected by the code red signature)” (Ex. 1005, 14:59–64; see Pet. 37). Willebeek-LeMair further teaches, in step 312, “[t]his is reported back to the agent 126” which “responds in step 314 by reporting . . . that an attempt to exploit has occurred” (Ex. 1005 14:64–67; see Pet. 37). Willebeek-LeMair discloses the agent 126 additionally “instructs the firewalling functionality 118 in step 316 to drop the packet traffic relating to the attempted exploitation” and “in step 318 instruct[s] the firewall to block all traffic originating from the noted IP address of the attacker” (Ex. 1005 14:67–15:6, 1:7–10; see Pet. 37). Thus, because Willebeek-LeMair discloses a firewalling functionality, at this juncture, we determine Willebeek-LeMair teaches the recited “firewall-based occurrence mitigation type.” Additionally, because Willebeek-LeMair discloses instructing the firewall to block all traffic from the attacker (an occurrence mitigation action), based on the record before us, we determine Willebeek-LeMair teaches the recited “firewall-based occurrence mitigation type,” as recited in claim 1. and specifically, “a terminate action [ ] taken by the intrusion detector functionality 116 to terminate any session associated with a possible attack” (Ex. 1005, 12:40–43; see Pet. 38). Willebeek-LeMair also teaches the intrusion detector functionality generates alerts from its analysis of the network traffic content (Ex. 1005, 9:34–27, 1:7–10; see Pet. 38). Based on the record before us, we determine this intrusion detector functionality is an occurrence mitigation action that is different than the firewall-based occurrence mitigation type. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we determine Willebeek-LeMair teaches the recited “a other occurrence mitigation type,” as recited in claim 1. In combination of these two functionalities, we determine on the current record, Willebeek-LeMair teaches the recited “cause utilization of different occurrence mitigation actions of diverse occurrence mitigation types, including a firewall-base occurrence mitigation type and a other occurrence mitigation type” (see Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 97)).” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,893,066 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Securityprofiling, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · IPR2021-01428 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1 and 5 because Patent Owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims before institution.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentDecided for patent owner
“With respect to Petitioner’s contention that the disclaimer “must––by rule–be ‘construed to be a request for adverse judgment,’” we are not persuaded (see Pet. Reply 2). Rather, the rule states “[a] party may request judgment against itself” (37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) (emphasis added)). Thus, the rule does not require adverse judgment. Additionally, we do not read Arthrex as requiring adverse judgment be entered (see Arthrex, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345). Rather, we read Arthrex as permitting, but not requiring, adverse judgment when a patent owner cancels all claims at issue prior to institution (id. at 1350). The statutory disclaimer was filed before institution. In view of this disclaimer, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) and the Board’s precedential General Electric decision, we determine a denial of institution is sufficient to dispose of this case (see Gen. Elec. Co., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9). Thus, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“The statutory disclaimer was filed before institution. In view of this disclaimer, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) and the Board’s precedential General Electric decision, we determine a denial of institution is sufficient to dispose of this case (see Gen. Elec. Co., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9). Thus, we decline to institute an inter partes review. III. CONCLUSION Based on the review of Exhibit 2003 and Office public records, we conclude that a disclaimer of claims 1 and 5 of the ’063 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of December 16, 2021 (Ex. 2003). Because all the claims challenged by Petitioner have been disclaimed under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a), no inter partes review is instituted in this proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e)).” slip op. at 7
NonePatents in suitUS 10,609,063 - DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · IPR2020-01276 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 29 not unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“After institution, neither party put forth arguments related to the level of ordinary skill. We discern no reason to change the level of ordinary skill in the art applied in this Final Written Decision. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either (1) a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as well as three to four years of experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming multimedia data; or (2) a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two years of experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming multimedia data. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’796 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. Petitioner does not take an express position on whether the preambles of the challenged claims are limiting. See Pet. 21 (stating that Geagan teaches the preamble “to the extent it is limiting”). Patent Owner supports our preliminary determination that the preambles are limiting. PO Resp. 37–41. Given this posture, we discern no reason to change our initial determination that the preambles are limiting. Thus, even though the disposition of this case does not turn on any particular limitation in the preamble, we maintain our determination that the preambles of claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting to the extent they color our analysis of Petitioner’s rationale for combining various prior art references.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that no terms require explicit construction.2 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))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner attempts to decouple these central control aspects from the functionality of sliding windows. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he majority of the functionality for implementing the sliding window buffers is found in Vishlitzky’s stream servers themselves” and that Patent Owner has not established “that the controller servers of Vishlitzky exercise control over the playout history, the buffers, or sliding window functionality of Vishlitzky’s stream servers.” Pet. Reply 8–9. Yet Petitioner expressly relies on Vishlitzky’s admission control program, which runs on controller servers 28, 29, to teach the “determining” step of claim 1. Pet. 35–36, 40–41; Pet. Reply 21–22. Petitioner has not explained how the admission control program’s centralized function of choosing an appropriate stream server to service a request (see Ex. 1010, 7:62–8:3) would be implemented in the stream servers themselves. In addition, Petitioner’s analogy between Vishlitzky’s controller servers and the memory controllers used with Geagan’s proxy (Pet. 63; Pet. Reply 9) does not detail how and whether Petitioner proposes to modify Vishlitzky’s centralized controller functions such that they might be compatible with “the distributed nature of Geagan’s proxy approach,” as Petitioner characterizes it. Pet. Reply 10. At the oral hearing, Petitioner also suggested that a controller within a single proxy from Geagan could allocate incoming requests to multiple of Vishlitzky’s stream servers within that same proxy. Tr. 55:1–57:21; see also PO Sur-reply 23–24 (discussing this potential argument). In other words, Petitioner seemed to suggest that multiple stream servers from Vishlitzky’s stream server architecture in Figure 16, along with controller servers from Figure 2, could be replicated in each of Geagan’s proxies. Yet Petitioner disavows such a mapping in its Reply: “[T]he Petition does not propose that a POSITA would have bodily incorporated the entirety of Vishlitzky’s hardware control structure when implementing Geagan’s system using Vishlitzky’s ‘sliding window’ to store cached streaming content.” Pet. Reply 6. Nor was this the combination described in the Petition. Instead, Petitioner proposed “to implement the buffer of Geagan as a ‘pre-configured playout history (PH) buffer’ . . . because Vishlitzky teaches that it is advantageous to pre-configure a playout buffer.” Pet. 34; see also id. at 62–63 (“[A] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing details of the ATM-based stream server of Vishlitzky in Geagan’s proxy . . . .”). Petitioner further characterizes this as “[t]he buffer of Geagan’s proxy, as implemented as a pre-configured PH buffer per Vishlitzky.” Pet. 39. And, importantly, Petitioner cites the creation of another proxy device in Geagan for teaching the recited “non pre-configured PH buffer”: “Geagan in view of Vishlitzky discloses ‘servicing the first request from a non pre-configured PH buffer,’ such as by live-streaming content using a buffer at the proxy device that is created at the time of the request for an unpopular live stream.” Pet. 42 (emphasis added). Finally, even if Petitioner’s papers had proposed a combination where Vishlitzky’s entire stream server and controller architecture is incorporated in each of Geagan’s proxies, Petitioner has failed to articulate reasons with some rational underpinning why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made this combination. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. At the very least, Petitioner has not explained where Vishlitzky’s controller servers would be disposed in the combined system and how they” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 6,757,796 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,757,796
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.