- Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00806 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 15–17, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed paramagnetic flux paths in Wakuda lacked adequate support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 3. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’830 patent specification.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that independent claims 1, 19, and 20 include means plus function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.8 Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 are means plus function limitations. Pet. 3–7; PO Resp. 6–14. Construing a means plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Therefore, the specification clearly links the function of “control[ing] supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” at least to portions of steps 706 and 708 of the flow diagram algorithm of Figure 7A, as described above. Thus, the control component requires a microprocessor and memory with algorithmic structure including a timing algorithm or similar coding for creating a control output signal that flips to control the direction of current flow through a coil (e.g., coil 514, Fig. 5, coil 626, Fig. 6), where the coil is structure that corresponds to the recited “driving component,” as noted above.11 We adopt the District Court’s conclusion in the Apple litigation that the “control component” structure itself does not require an H-bridge switch, but only requires that the processor generates the “d” inputs to the switch; and further that the structure does not require does not require computing initial default values as specified in step 702 of Figure 7A (i.e., values not specified by a user). Ex. 3001, 30–33, 35. This is in accord with settled law 11 “Rather than using a formal timer mechanism, certain implementations may simply employ counted loops or other simple programming techniques for periodically carrying out tasks.” Ex. 1001, 7:17–20. that limits the structure to that necessary to perform the claimed function. 12 By the same token, we modify the District Court’s construction to the extent it would require, based on such steps as 706, 710, and 716, a specific order of the steps of generating the “p” and “d” values. The claims only require the control component to control the power supply to cause oscillation at a specified frequency and amplitude, but do not require the frequency value to be generated before the amplitude value, or vice versa.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“to include the ability disclosed in Ramsay to allow a user to customize and store parameters associated with haptic effects, such as creating “haptic track files” that specify variations in the amplitude and frequency of the effect over time to achieve a desired effect. Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15, 25– 28, 37; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 192–193). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated by the desire to expand the functionalities of haptic devices to allow end users to create and customize haptic effects, to provide a fuller haptic experience, and to be able to store haptic effects to save processing power compared to real-time generated effects. Id. at 47–49 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 30, 47, 53–57; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–196). Petitioner argues that this making combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both references deal with linear actuators, both disclose storing frequency and amplitude values, and the combination involves routine knowledge of software techniques. Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:3–9; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 17, 26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 197–198). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to use the H-bridge switch of Rossi as part of the Gregorio actuator drive circuit 16 in the asserted Gregorio-Ramsay combination to periodically switch the polarity of drive signals to electric coil 28 of Gregorio, and thus oscillate magnet 27, under the control of a signal from processor 12 of Gregorio. Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 211). Petitioner argues that this combination would have been motivated because Gregorio does not disclose implementation details and therefore one of ordinary skill would have looked toward teachings like Rossi to fill in those details, and that an H-bridge switch was a well-known example circuit for implementing a change in “current flow direction/polarity” for “push” and “pull” actions in a system, and was a simple, cost-effective, and reliable circuit design. Id. at 56–58 (citing Ex. 1020, Abstr., Figs. 4, 6, 1:65–3:54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 212–217). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques through routine circuit design considerations and software instructions for generating the control signal. Id. at 58 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 218). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to modify the Gregorio-Ramsay-Rossi combination, using the control algorithm disclosed in Aldrich, to replace the monitoring technique of Gregorio with that of Aldrich to maintain a resonance frequency by incrementing or decrementing the drive frequency. Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:22–28, 4:42–48; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 219). Petitioner’s expert provides implementation details of Aldrich, including that the Aldrich hill-climb technique would use a Boolean value to indicate whether the frequency was being increased, with local variables set to default values, and use integer values when processing sensor signals. Id. at 59–60 (citing Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 220–222). Petitioner argues that these modifications would have been motivated to improve the Gregorio system using the Aldrich feedback algorithm for targeting a resonant frequency, given that the Gregorio approach had shortcomings that required a monitoring period with reduced haptic feedback, receiving weak EMF signals. Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 2004, 3:65–5:55, 5:63–65; Ex. 1021, 1–3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 223–227). Petitioner argues that making this combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that it involved known techniques for improvement to yield predictable results, readily implemented via software executed by the microprocessor. Id. at 62–63 (citing Ex. 2004, 2:44–50; Ex. 1021, 2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 229). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,941,830 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,941,830 - Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00680 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103 over Gregorio, Ramsay, Tierling, Rossi, and Aldrich; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Gregorio, Ramsay, Wakuda, Rossi, and Aldrich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” See PO Resp. 4. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’337 patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claim 2 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7. Construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionTerm construed board ownMixed
“supply of power from the power supply to . . . cause the moveable component to oscillate at a frequency . . . specified by one or more stored values” to portions of steps 706 and 708 of the flow diagram algorithm of Figure 7A, as described above. Thus, the control component requires a microprocessor and memory with algorithmic structure including a timing algorithm or similar coding for creating a control output signal that flips to control the direction of current flow through a coil (e.g., coil 514, Fig. 5, coil 626, Fig. 6), where the coil is structure that corresponds to the recited “driving component,” as noted above.10 We adopt the District Court’s conclusion in the Apple litigation that the “control component” structure itself does not require an H-bridge switch, but only requires that the processor generates the “d” inputs configured to operate a switch or other circuit; and further that the structure does not require does not require computing initial default values as specified in step 702 of Figure 7A (i.e., values not specified by a user). Ex. 3001, 30–33, 35. This is in accord with settled law that limits the structure to that necessary to 10 “Rather than using a formal timer mechanism, certain implementations may simply employ counted loops or other simple programming techniques for periodically carrying out tasks.” Ex. 1001, 7:7–10. perform the claimed function. 11 By the same token, we modify the District Court’s construction to the extent it would require, based on such steps as 706, 710, and 716, a specific order of the steps of generating the “p” and “d” values. The claims only require the control component to control the power supply to cause oscillation at a specified frequency and amplitude, but do not require the frequency value to be generated before the amplitude value, or vice versa.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“The record, including testimony by Dr. Hannaford (Ex. 1003; Ex. 1049), supports Petitioner’s rationale, and shows that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Gregorio, Ramsay, and Wakuda in the manner proposed. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s showing for combining these references with any particularity. See generally PO Resp. We discuss below Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s showing as to limitation 2.f based on the combination of Gregorio and Ramsay is conclusory.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,860,337 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,860,337 - Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00807 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103 over Gregorio, Ramsay, Tierling, Rossi, and Aldrich; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Gregorio, Ramsay, Wakuda, Rossi, and Aldrich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that independent claim 2 includes means-plus- function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.8 Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7–15. An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claim 2 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7. Construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Construction of “Driving Component” Petitioner contends that the claimed function of “driving component” is “drives the moveable component to oscillate within the housing.” Pet. 5; Ex. 2002, 2. Petitioner asserts that the corresponding structure is a coil of conductive wire 420” (Figures 4A–4G); “coil 514” (Figures 5A–5B); “coil 626” (Figure 6); “electromagnet” (Figures 10-11); “additional coils 1202 and 1204” (Figure 12); “coils 1302 and 1304” (Figure 13); “driving coils 1412 and 1414” (Figure 14); “coil 1510” (Figures 15–17); “stator coils” (Figures 24A-25). Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:2–34, 5:54–59, 6:32–35, 9:11–52, 9:64–10:22, 14:59); Ex. 2002, 2.). Patent Owner states that it “does not believe that the phrase involving a ‘driving component’ needs to be construed in order to resolve any issue in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner agreed to the above construction in the Apple Litigation, and the court adopted this construction. Ex. 2002, 2. The record supports Petitioner’s position and we adopt it.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” See PO Resp. 4. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’337 patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In contrast to Petitioner’s showing, at the passage cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Goossen, Patent Owner’s expert, does not provide a basis for his opinion that “the combined system of Gregorio-Ramsay-Rossi-Aldrich does not teach the claimed output to the power supply.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 156; PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 156). To the extent Dr. Goossen addresses the issue, like Patent Owner, Dr. Goossen concedes that “a POSITA would recognize in the [annotated drawing of Gregorio supplied by Petitioner] that a power supply is required that is not shown.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 116. And also like Patent Owner, Dr. Goossen concludes that Petitioner’s rationale that an “unshown power supply receives a signal from the processor is a sweeping conclusion that does not follow.” Id. For the reasons discussed above in connection with Patent Owner’s parallel arguments, this testimony is conclusory and unsupported. Primarily, it does not adequately address Petitioner’s showing and Dr. Hannaford’s testimony, discussed above, which relies on Gregorio’s statement that “[p]rocessor 12 outputs the control signals to drive circuit 26 which includes electronic components and circuitry used to supply LRA 18 with the required electrical current and voltage to cause the desired haptic effects.” Ex. 1004, 2:36–39 (emphases added). Dr. Goossen and Patent Owner also do not address the initial finding in the Institution Decision that “[t]he ’337 patent does not disclose any detail or structure for the controllable power supply, indicating that such a controllable power supply was well-known.” Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:33–35 (“The power supply 612 receives a control input 624 from the CPU to control the current supplied to the H-bridge switch for transfer to the coil 626.”)).16 And while Dr. Goossen contends that Dr. Hannaford’s reliance on Ramsay to further suggest control of the power supply is conclusory because “Dr. Hannaford’s statement about ‘the current provided from a power supply to the driving component’ has nothing to do with Ramsay’s disclosure,’” Dr. Goossen addresses Ramsay and Gregorio in isolation, without adequately addressing the combination, specifically where Gregorio teaches or suggests controlling a power supply in order to provide desired LRA amplitude and frequency haptic effects, which is in line with Ramsay’s teaching of user-customizable parameters to control amplitude and frequency for the same purpose. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 126; Pet. 53–54 (summarized above). Therefore, the Petition shows persuasively that Gregorio’s processor controls Gregorio’s power supply to provide power to its haptic unit or that such power supply control would have been obvious in view of Ramsay in order to allow a user to control the desired haptic effect.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 8,860,337 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,860,337 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00739 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3, and 6–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Jaszlics and Rallison.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . 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). Upon consideration of the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 of the ’277 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.) Pet. 4. Patent Owner at this stage does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. See Ex. 1001, 2:37–41, 2:61–67, 3:21–23, 8:50–64. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (Ex. 1001, 1:56–58), which indicates that the applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” Ex. 1001, 11:12–14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a “physical playfield” with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s unsupported contention that the location of Jaszlics’s image processor is outside of the display device, this would result in only two identified, predictable locations of the image processor. The image processor would either be located outside of the display device or inside of the display device. We are persuaded that substituting Rallison’s location of inside the display device instead of outside the display device provides sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Jaszlics and Rallison. See Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (reversing the Board’s determination of lack of motivation “because Okubo’s terminal-side plotting and Konishi’s server-side plotting were both well known in the art, and were the only two identified, predictable solutions for transmitting a map and plotting locations, it would have been obvious to substitute server-side plotting for terminal-side plotting in a combination of Okubo and Konishi”) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,179,277 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00738 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3, and 6–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . 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). Upon consideration of the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 3, and 6–8 of the ’448 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes revisions to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application claiming the benefit of the filing date of an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,166,744 issued Dec. 20, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 Int’l Patent Appl. Pub. No. WO 2003/107039 A2 published Dec. 24, 2003 (Ex. 1008). 4 U.S. Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0163486 Al published Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1009) 5 U.S. Patent No. 6,361,438 B1 issued Mar. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006). 6 U.S. Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0002843 A1 published Jan. 1, 2004) (Ex. 1007). combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.) Pet. 5. Patent Owner at this stage does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Ex. 1001, 2:32–36, 2:55–61, 3:14–16, 5:63–65, 6:30–32, 8:31–45, 9:4–9, 19:60–20:22, 22:5–6. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (Ex. 1001, 1:56–58), which indicates that the applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” Ex. 1001, 11:12–14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a “physical playfield” with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. . . . A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Jaszlics discloses that the “invention relates . . . to systems for combining virtual images with real-world scenes” to provide applications such as virtual reality games (Ex. 1003, 1:13–21), which is the same field as the ’448 patent’s field of “location-based games and augmented reality systems” (Ex. 1001, Title). Turning to Sofer, the purpose of the detector of Sofer is to detect the location of objects in the user’s surrounding environment (Ex. 1008, Abstract; see id. at 2, 6, 11), which is the same purpose as the detector of the ’448 patent (Ex. 1001, 15:4–5; see id. at 1:28–31, 2:5, 16:11–18, 19:54–57). Therefore, Sofer’s detector is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of detecting the location of objects in the user’s surrounding environment. We are sufficiently persuaded that Jaszlics and Sofer are analogous to the claimed invention.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,744,448 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00742 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 6-10, 14, 17, 24-28, and 30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’243 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“portable device 100 as “portable” even when components of that “device” are integrated in a “non-portable” device, such as a car. Examples of such portable devices are provided as wireless telephones, PDAs, laptops; handheld devices, and music players. Ex. 1009 ¶ 22; See Ex. 1001, 4:22−28 (describing a visor as a portable gaming system); 7:21−27 (listing additionally Blackberries, Personal Electronic Devices, IPODs and any other portable electronic device, to be configured as a gaming system). Taking these disclosures together, the ’243 patent does not define the degree of the “portability” of the claimed device to require that the “portable device” must be completely “free of encumbering external connections.” If “portability” can include integrating a component of the “portable device” into a “non-portable device,” then there is support for holding that the recited “portable device” could be tethered to a non-portable device.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“rotation sensors are found not to be positioned on Levesque’s display, it would have been obvious to do so in light of Ronzani because Ronzani teaches equipping the head-mounted device with external and internal sensors). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding motivation to combine amount to showing that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The inquiry at this juncture is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan is “able to recognize, based on her background knowledge, [a technique’s] potential to improve the device and be able to apply the technique.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artInstituted
“A reference that is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention is analogous art,5 and such a qualification means that one of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have been aware of the reference and thus the refence properly may be considered if it predates the claimed invention. See Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that the field of endeavor of the claims of the ’243 patent is “the field of portable user-worn devices for providing location based-entertainment.” Pet. 19−20. According to that description of the relevant field of endeavor, Petitioner argues that both Levesque and Ronzani are analogous to the ’243 patent. Id. Patent Owner appears to argue that the field of endeavor is “video games.” Prelim. Resp. 29−30. This is not the correct field of endeavor because although the claim recites a location based game system, the claims considerably focus on the head-mounted device. Indeed, for claim 1 all the structural elements claimed involve or are placed in the head-mounted device. Thus, “video games” generally is not an appropriate field of endeavor, as it is too broad and ignores the significant focus of the claims of the ’243 patent. Petitioner’s statement of the field of endeavor is, therefore, more indicative of the correct field of endeavor involved here. And as such, it is unpersuasive to argue that Ronzani does not belong to the field merely because it is not solely focused on video” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,904,243 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 on all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Douglas and Mark.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A claim is unpatentable under § 103 “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21); Prelim. Resp. 9. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. Although we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal for this decision. Only Petitioner’s proposed level is supported by testimonial evidence on the preliminary record, and it appears to be consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“CLAIM CONSTRUCTION B. In an IPR, we construe a patent claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This generally includes “construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313, 1321. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 9. However, the parties’ positions depend on interpreting the claim language in a particular way, and we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art. 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“At this stage, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive and disagree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner appears to equate a “fabrication profile” with a toolpath description, but nothing in the plain language of claim 1 supports that narrow interpretation. The ’774 patent describes a “fabrication profile” broadly and states that the profile can simply “include the dictionary [of configuration information],” or be “used to determine which machineready representation is available or suitable for a target printer.” Ex. 1001, 23:49–52. The preliminary evidence suggests that Douglas’s “operational parameters” would count as a “fabrication profile” because it is “the basis for generation of a machine-ready representation of the three-dimensional model that is executable on the target printer.” Id. at 23:37–39; see infra Section III.C.8. We also disagree that Petitioner’s argument is impermissible hindsight, because it is based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a sufficiently persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”). Finally, Petitioner appears to rely on Mark for providing a particular example of a fabrication profile, not to replace Douglas’s overall system in which the 3D printer can receive “operational parameters” rather than just G-code. See Pet. 8–10, 17–23; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 41 (the print queue, which stores tool instructions, may be maintained locally on printers 204 or on print servers 208); see In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc))).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,886,774 - Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00573 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7 or 11 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an 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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’772 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 7 and 11 of the ’772 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) pertaining to the ’772 patent “would have had an educational background of, engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems.” Pet. 19–20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26. “Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. generally. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’772 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In this inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We do not need to construe any terms expressly to determine whether or not to institute a trial. 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,481,772 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00741 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of the ’493 patent on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contentions of obviousness for claim 1 of the ’559 patent and claim 1 of the ’493 patent.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,376,493 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00740 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of both patents on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of each patent is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated in this Decision, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’559 patent and at least one claim of the ’493 patent are unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the instant Petitions. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill, would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a 2 US Patent No. 6,166,744, issued Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 US Patent No. 6,369,952 B1, issued Apr. 9, 2002 (Ex. 1004). 4 WO 03/107039 A2, published Dec. 24, 2003 (Ex. 1008). 5 US Patent Application US 2002/0163486 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1009). person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. 740 Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21−25); 741 Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“At this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Paper 10 in the 740 IPR; and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply, filed as Paper 11 in the 740 IPR. Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Ex. 1001, 2:38−40, 2:63–3:2, 3:23–25, 6:11−13, 6:46−48, 8:48– 62, 9:23–28, 20:28−58, 22:1−4. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (740 Ex. 1001, 1:58−60), which indicates that applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined, or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” 740 Ex. 1001, 11:12−14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing a physical playfield with defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a physical playfield with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We, therefore, agree at this juncture with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis, and note that the alleged goal of improving the safety in virtual reality gaming does not support Patent Owner’s construction.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Second, Petitioner’s explanation of its alternative theory—that Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,828,559
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.