- PTAB · Nov 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00851 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims 1–7 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, for the reasons below, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of challenged claims 1–7. We thus deny institution of inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) (“At any” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant prior art. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112[(f)] applies” and that “the failure to use the word ‘means’ also creates a rebuttable presumption—this time that § 112[(f)] does not apply.”12 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (internal citations omitted). Because the “sealing means” limitation includes the word “means,” we start from the rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) applies. Petitioner does not address the applicability of § 112(f) and does not rebut the presumption. We continue the analysis, however, and, for the reasons below, we agree with Patent Owner that § 112(f) applies to the “sealing means” limitation.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. “fits behind” In wherein clause (vi), claim 1 recites: “the outwardly pointing outer flange of the first connecting device fits behind the inner flange of the nut unit.” Ex. 1001, 9:4–5 (emphasis added). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner discusses the term “fits behind” in this claim language. See Prelim. Resp. 41–45. We need not construe explicitly this language or any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis. 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 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,851,030 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · PGR2024-00026 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–7 and all grounds because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim lacks written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments, cited portions of the Specification, and supporting testimonial evidence demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“patent describes that “angular position transducer 78 is placed on top of swing leg pivot shaft 24” and that “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate and duplicates the angular movements of swing leg 20 about the pivot shaft.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–16, 12:20–22, Figs. 5, 7. The ’723 patent also describes that “[a]ngular position transducer 78 is mounted inside . . . protective can 90 . . . which is bolted to hinge bracket 28 via an upright holding arm 92” and that “trigger pin 94 projects upwardly from the top surface of pivot shaft 24 and cooperates with angular position transducer 78 to generate an angular position signal.” Id. at 12:28–33, Fig. 5. These descriptions expressly convey that angular position transducer 78 is on pivot shaft 24 and mounted inside protective can 90 that is bolted to hinge bracket 28. Id. at 12:15–16, 12:20–22, 12:28–30, Figs. 5, 7; see also Prelim. Resp. 17 (describing the same embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 7). According to Petitioner, the ’723 patent describes the pivot shaft as part of the hinge bracket, not the modular frame or swing leg. Pet. 109–110 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:42–46, 12:17–22). On the preliminary record, we agree because the cited portions of the Specification describe that a “hinge bracket is interposed between each swing leg and an associated surface of the bolsters and includes a fixed, upright pivot shaft that pivotally engages the swing leg for pivotal movements” and “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45, 12:20–21. We also agree that “even if one were to find that the hinge bracket is part of either the modular frame or swing leg (contrary to the claims and specification treating these all as separate components), the specification would only provide written description for one of the claimed alternatives.” Pet. 110 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 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 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We will also not use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition based on arguments previously presented in IPR2021-00135, because Petitioner relies on a Board determination regarding claim 8 from IPR2021- 00136, not arguments previously made for claim 1 in IPR2021-00135. Pet. 111–115, 119; Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Furthermore, we determined the effective filing date of claim 8 of the ’571 patent without deciding, that other challenged claims, such as claim 1, were entitled to their earliest possible effective filing date. See Godberson-Smith, Paper 61 at 11, 12.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,772,723 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · IPR2024-00835 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable over CIII and Rio.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Advanced Bionics stated that: If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments. It informs, therefore, the petitioner’s showing under factors (e) and (f), which focus on the petitioner’s evidence of previous Office error regardless of the context in which the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented. For example, if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f). On the other hand, if the alleged error is a disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office, then ordinarily the petitioner’s required showing of material error must overcome persuasively that specific finding of record. That is, although Becton, Dickinson factor (c) evaluates “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection,” the focus should be on the record when determining whether the Office erred in evaluating such art or arguments.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d) Petitioner Shows a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that CIII and Rio teach, suggest, or would have been understood to disclose the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“track” that “is configured to rotate . . . relative to the jacking column,” Petitioner proposes modifying CIII in view of Rio “by positioning Rio’s rotary actuator 44 between the jacking column and crawler track, and using that rotary actuator to rotate CIII’s crawler track relative to the entire jacking column, rather than just its outer cylinder.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 89) (emphasis added); see also id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92; Ex. 1006, 5:8–11, 6:2–6). Petitioner argues such a modification would have been a design choice, one of a finite number of alternatives, obvious to try, and a known design that provides maneuverability. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–67; Ex. 1006, 5:8–11; Ex. 1007, 5:14–59, Figs. 4–5; Ex. 1008, 7:35– 53, Figs. 7, 20; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 5, 19–20, Fig. 2; Ex. 1011, 4:7–16, Fig. 3; Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 41, 44–45). At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments and cited evidence sufficiently support for institution that the modification would have been made so that the proposed combination would have had “a crawler track” that “is configured to rotate . . . relative to the jacking column.” Regarding claim 1’s “slew drive,” as discussed above, Petitioner proposes modifying CIII so that rotary actuator 44, the asserted slew drive, would be between the jacking column and crawler track. See Pet. 29–31. Petitioner also argues that, in the proposed combination, “actuating the rotary actuator causes the crawler track to rotate relative to the entire jacking column.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). The present record supports Petitioner’s argument that Rio’s worm gear actuator would have been understood to disclose a slew drive with support from the ’318 patent itself, the opinion of its declarant, and deposition testimony of Patent Owner’s expert in related litigation. Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:40–61; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91; Ex. 1006, 4:61–5:3; Ex. 1032, 84:12–86:17). At this stage, the cited evidence sufficiently supports for purposes of institution Petitioner’s argument that the proposed combination would have included the recited “slew drive.”” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“had at least a four-year degree in mechanical engineering or a closely related field and at least two years of experience designing, developing, or operating heavy machinery, including their components and control systems.” Pet. 8– 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–24). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree, and an advanced degree could substitute for experience.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–25). Petitioner states that “[t]he Board adopted this definition of the level of ordinary skill for the related ’749 patent.” Id. (citing Godberson-Smith Const. Co. v. Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc., IPR2020-01698, Paper 80, 21–24 (PTAB Apr. 12, 2022) (Final Written Decision)). For purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 13 (quoting Pet. 8–9). Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Pet. 8–9; Godberson-Smith, Paper 80 at 21–24 (determining level of ordinary skill after considering the parties’ competing proposals and evidence).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,535,318 - Cub Elecparts Inc. v. Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00744 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least one year of experience in sensor/detector design or RF communications (RFIDs)” and “would have a working knowledge of tire pressure management systems and, as most POSA would also be automobile owners, would have had personal experience with tire pressure management systems which have been required in all new cars, trucks, and SUVs in the United States since 2007.” Pet. 17. Petitioner adds that “[e]ducation may substitute for experience and vice versa.” Id.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 17. Petitioner notes that, in the tire pressure detecting field, terms such as “detector,” “sensor,” and “monitor” relate to the same device and can be used interchangeably. Id. at 17–18. Patent Owner contends that no claim term needs construction to resolve the grounds asserted in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 16. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s unsupported assertion that tire pressure sensors typically are programmed with only the ID as part of the factory installation is insufficient to establish obviousness in this instance. Petitioner does not provide adequate reasoning or evidence to 11 Petitioner relies on the same analysis of this claim 26 limitation for the substantially similar limitation of claim 27. Pet. 66. Accordingly, our analysis of the claim 26 limitation applies equally to the corresponding limitation of claim 27. art would have known that tire pressure sensors typically are programmed at the factory with a single ID. Furthermore, even if assuming for the sake of argument that Petitioner’s assertion is correct, the Petition fails to explain adequately how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the combination of Tang and Lemense to store only the old identification in the old tire pressure detector.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,031,064 - Aptiv Services US, LCC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00803 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–18 obvious over Verhaege, Verhaege and Miller, or Ker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“(‘POSITA’) in the field of the ’665 patent in 2007 would have at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and three to five years of experience in integrated circuit design.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s definition is “excessively high.” Prelim. Resp. 3 n.1. In Patent Owner’s view, “a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent technical degree and two years of experience in mixed-signal (i.e., analog/digital) circuit design.” Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 30–34). We need not resolve this dispute because our decision would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In Patent Owner’s view, “the claims require sharing ESD charge from one pad with a different I/O pad.” Prelim. Resp. 27. Patent Owner argues that charge sharing is the only way that charging the pad capacitance can reduce a maximum voltage, as recited. Id. at 24–25. Apart from the charge sharing, Patent Owner argues that the recited enable or control circuitry is not located in the circuit where the ESD event occurs. Id. at 27–33. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner disagrees with this interpretation. Id. Petitioner, though, argues that it would have been obvious to duplicate Verhaege’s and Ker’s protection circuits. See, e.g., id. at 18 (discussing claim 1 and Verhaege), 48 (discussing the Verhaege-Miller combination), 66 (discussing claim 1 and Kerr). For example, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been motivated to use the improved protection circuit of Verhaege, apply it at every I/O pad, and share the ESD energy across multiple pad circuits as taught by Miller.” See id. at 48 (emphasis added). From statements like these, Patent Owner draws the conclusion that Petitioner must also be interpreting the claims to require charge sharing. Prelim. Resp. 25–27. For the reasons discussed in Section II.C below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of showing that any claims are unpatentable even under the implied claim construction used in its obviousness rationale. The Board need not expressly construe any claims in reaching that conclusion.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner argues, “It would have been obvious to a POSITA that, because an ESD event could occur at any I/O pad, the Verhaege invention should be repeated at every I/O pad.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 67); id at 30–32 (claim 6); id. at 43 (claim 14). Yet Petitioner acknowledges that “there were many obvious ways to activate multiple circuits during an ESD event.” Id. at 51. The Petition does not sufficiently explain why it would have been obvious to have chosen the way that is claimed. See id. at 18, 30– 32, 43. Rather, Petitioner’s obviousness rationale appears to be based on impermissible hindsight gleaned entirely from the challenged patent’s 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the . . . patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”). For this additional reason, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges to claims 1, 6, and 14.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,564,665 - ROKU, Inc. v. Ecolink Intelligent Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2024 · IPR2023-00792 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Lamb and Williams; claims 1 and 11 are also unpatentable as obvious over Sharma.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we determine that Mr. McNair has experience in residential security and alarm systems and sixty years of experience in the research, design, development, and engineering of the technology underlying such systems that is sufficient for him to at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art. Id. ¶¶ 6–12. Also, his years of experience at the Security and System Reliability Architecture Group at AT&T Bell labs alone (id. ¶ 10; see also, id. at p. 147) meets the three or more years of commercial design and development experience in security and alarm systems, under Patent Owner’s definition (PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 34)). Thus, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Bruce McNair lacks knowledge and skill at least of an ordinarily skilled artisan—even under Patent Owner’s definition. See PO Resp. 6. In this decision, we assign Bruce McNair’s testimony the appropriate weight, as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two or more years of experience or equivalent study in sensor systems.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 10031 ¶¶ 37–40). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 12–13. Patent Owner disagrees and argues, [A person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had at least a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in electrical or electronic engi-neering or an equivalent field, and three or more years of com-mercial design and development experience in residential or business security and alarm systems. 1 Exhibit 1003 is the declaration of Bruce McNair. The differences between the two skill levels does not affect the Board’s analysis of Petitioner’s challenge. In fact, Patent Owner’s addition of experience in “security and alarm systems” only increases the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 6. Our conclusion that Petitioner has shown that all challenged claims are unpatentable is the same under either definition.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Either way, “defining a particular claim term by its function is not improper.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For example, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found that there is “nothing improper about defining ‘datalink’ as a link that conveys data.” Id. at 1375. “Many devices take their names from the functions they perform. The examples are innumerable, such as ‘filter,’ ‘brake,’ ‘clamp,’ ‘screwdriver,’ or ‘lock.’” Id. (quoting Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the functions recited in claims 1 and 11 limit what the “timed alarm signal” indicates, how it is used as well as its relationship to a timer, alarm, and security panel. If not for a timer associated with the security panel, there is no clear purpose for transmitting the “timed alarm signal” only when the specific determination is made, and that claimed determination would be rendered superfluous. A construction that requires the purpose of initiating a timer associated with the security panel is consistent with rest of the functions and steps recited in claims 1 and 11. Considering the claim as a whole, the other expressly recited functions and steps support our decision to include the signal’s purpose in our construction.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. Petitioner’s obviousness rationale is persuasive and supported by the evidence of record. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Essentially, Lamb assumes that the detected person is authorized. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 37, 40, 58–59, cited in Pet. 17. Williams’s system permits authorized persons to use the space, while retaining security against intruders. Ex. 1010, 2:31–38, cited in Pet. 18. Petitioner persuasively supports the assertion that waiting for an authorization code would enhance system security in Lamb because one of ordinary skill in the art would been motivated “to verify—and not assume— that a potential alarm was triggered by an authorized person.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1010, 2:35–38). We credit Bruce McNair’s testimony on this issue (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–54) because it is supported by the record (Ex. 1010, 2:31–38; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 37, 40, 58–59).” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,692,340 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,692,340 - PTAB · Oct 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Valve would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of human computer interaction (HCI), including implementation of computer-based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 33). Patent Owner also argues that formal education could substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. Id. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Although we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision because it is sufficiently persuasive to meet Petitioner’s “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term defining in claim 1 requires that the recited position and range information must be user-modifiable. Although claims 8 and 15 (not claim 1) recite a “program comprising instructions for . . . defining position and range information,” nothing in these claims explicitly requires that this program has any interaction with a user. Ex. 1001, 14:24–25, 14:64–65. Also, although the ’907 patent disclosure refers to computer architecture components for rendering a haptic effect within a boundary range, Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’907 patent suggesting that range settings must be user-modifiable. The ’907 patent does refer to “trigger data” that is “based on user input data,” but this trigger data appears to be collected by firmware, suggesting that the user’s involvement in creating trigger data consists of simply pulling or pushing the triggers of the controller. See Ex. 1001, 7:1–6, 8:10–16 (trigger data is “received from [the] controller . . . by peripheral firmware”), 8:58–65 (trigger data is obtained from potentiometers in the controller and sent to peripheral firmware), Fig. 3 (showing “[t]rigger data” 323 as part of peripheral firmware 320). Further, the ’907 patent discloses that the primary and secondary ranges at least “may be fixed or variable.” Ex. 1001, 5:29–30. This suggests that an embodiment in which all the range information is fixed (i.e., unalterable by a user) would be within the scope of the claimed invention. As to Patent Owner’s argument that defining would exclude something that is pre-defined, Patent Owner provides no evidence of this in the ’907 patent, its prosecution history, or extrinsic evidence. We find the proposition that something “pre-defined” is not “defined” illogical, and we” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,907 - PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00730 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 were anticipated or obvious over Lee or Zheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard. Therefore, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“capability to include one or both first CBs and second CBs within any one of the CBGs. Prelim. Resp. 9–10. The plain and ordinary meaning of the CB/CBG limitation, however, does not provide such a requirement. Instead, the plain and ordinary meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” simply requires that at least one CBG contain each CB. Although the description in the Specification of the configuration example of Figure 11(c) arguably describes the capacity of a system to include the first and second CBs in any one of CBGs, the Specification’s permissive language does not appear in the challenged claims. That description reads:” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“multiple CB/CBG limitation, we nevertheless find it necessary to construe the limitation. Upon review of the record, we construe the limitation as requiring that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. The plain meaning of “each of the multiple CBs is included in any one of the multiple CBGs” is that each CB is included in a CBG, which means that at least one CBG includes each of the multiple CBs. Further, the Specification supports construing the limitation to have this plain meaning. Figure 11 of the ’509 patent, shown below, provides a configuration example of CBGs (Ex. 1001, 23:7–8):” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,196,509 - PTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00644 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 5, 7, and 8 were unpatentable over R2-1702708, which was not shown to be a prior-art printed publication.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“§ 42.4(a), we may only institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2023). Applying that standard, we do not institute an inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). If the petition relies on an alleged printed publication, “at the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,134,400 - PTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00734 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 15, 17, and 19–21, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “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) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 15, 17, and 19–21 in the ’518 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have been someone”: (1) “knowledgeable with the computer networking techniques available at the time”; and (2) “who had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of experience working with computer networks, including network security.” Pet. 7. Petitioner also asserts that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. Dr. Crovella’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–16. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’518 patent as well as the asserted references. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 16.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on the current record, Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of institution that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons, i.e., as articulated by Dr. Crovella, to combine the teachings of Gai, Yip, and Kwan in the way Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 14–21, 27, 29–31, 38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–58, 62–72, 91–92, 98, 101, 121. Based on the current record, Petitioner also establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references. See Pet. 16–17, 22, 38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60, 73–74, 121. (f) Preliminary Conclusion About Alleged Obviousness As discussed above, Petitioner’s analysis addresses how the combined disclosures in Gai, Yip, and Kwan teach claim 1’s subject matter. See supra §§ III.D.4(a)–(d). Additionally, Petitioner provides reasons with rational underpinnings as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gai, Yip, and Kwan in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra § III.D.4(e). Hence, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claim would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,623,518
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.