• Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. / Seoul Semiconductor, Inc. v. Document Security Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00938 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Nichia-614; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “PO Resp. 9 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 29) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not, however, explain how this difference in experience level would affect our analysis. Indeed, we see nothing in the record that indicates that viewing the ordinarily skilled artisan as having two more years of experience would change the outcome here. To the extent necessary, we apply Patent Owner’s adopted definition above because it is consistent with the ’119 patent and the asserted prior art and is supported by the Doolittle Declaration submitted by Petitioner. But our analysis would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “16. In particular, the patentee has not defined “conformal” or “substantially uniform” in the patent’s written description. See id. In fact, the terms do not appear in the Specification as originally filed. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002, 152–162). And we see no other evidence of lexicography or disavowal with respect to these terms. See Ex. 1001. So, consistent with Petitioner’s articulation of the case law, the terms “conformal” and “substantially uniform” should be given “their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” See Thorner v. Sony Comp. Ent. Amer., 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cited in Pet. Reply 3. As evidence of the “ordinary usage,” Petitioner cites the patent’s” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “To be sure, a patent “specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Or it may reveal “an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope.” Id. “The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear ‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision’ before it can affect the claim.’” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The patentee can disavow claim scope with language in the specification or the prosecution history. Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “In either case, the standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature.” Id. For the phrase “layer of phosphor particles” recited in the claims here, we see no reasonably clear, deliberate, and precise lexicography in the ’119 patent’s written description. When read in context, the sentence that Patent Owner characterizes as definitional simply explains that the drawings are not to scale: To simplify the drawings and better explain the present invention, the above figures show layers of relatively large phosphor particles that are only a few particles thick. However, it is to be understood that the phosphor layers are actually uniform layers constructed from much smaller particles, and the layers are many particles thick.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner also quotes the sentence that reads in full: “In the proposed invention, a wavelength converting material such as phosphor is laid over the LED chip in a manner such that substantially all the phosphor particles are in contact with the LED chip and the walls of the cavity where the LED is mounted.” Ex. 1001, 3:16–19, quoted in PO Resp. 11 (emphasis added). The written description also discloses that “the phosphor particles all settle down and are deposited around the LED chip and at least some portions of the cavity walls.” Id. at 4:24–26, quoted in PO Resp. 12. Yet these sentences do not define the term “layer of phosphor” with the reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision required to limit the claim as Patent Owner proposes. In fact, the cited passages do not even explicitly use the term “layer of phosphor.” Id. Instead, these sentences describe a single, exemplary embodiment, which is not definitional. See id. Lastly, Patent Owner points to the drawings to support its position. PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2–4, 6). But the drawings are merely exemplary, non-limiting embodiments. See Ex. 1001, 5:20–24; supra § II.C.1.b(1). In sum, we see no reason to interpret the claimed “layer of phosphor particles” as limited to the phosphor particles themselves. And we see no requirement in the claims that a “conformal layer of phosphor particles covering said die and in direct contact therewith” requires that the bottom layer of phosphor particles directly contact the LED, as Patent Owner has proposed. PO Resp. 11–13. Rather, consistent with the patent’s written description and the evidence of record, we determine that the recited “layer of phosphor particles” simply requires a layer that includes phosphor particles, without limitation to the position of the bottom phosphor particles relative to the LED.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,315,119 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,315,119
• Nichia Corporation v. Document Security Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 16, 2021 · IPR2020-00908 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8, and 11 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner’s planar construction of “mounting surface” was unsupported and the references did not disclose the claimed surface.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner, “a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSA’) would have had at least a B.S. in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and four [years of] experience designing or developing semiconductor—including LED—packages.” Pet. 13 (citing Shealy Decl. ¶ 31). Petitioner adds that “a higher education or skill level might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. at 13–14. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment but states: “For the purposes of this IPR proceeding, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Baker Decl. ¶ 26). We apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 6

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

    “For purposes of this decision, we need only address the proper construction of “mounting surface,” which is disputed by the parties. Here, Patent Owner’s argument and evidence produced during trial show that Petitioner’s construction of “mounting surface” is not in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that “the mounting surface having a plurality of recesses,” as recited in claim 1, means that the recesses are in the mounting surface itself. PO Resp. 10–11. As we discuss further here, this requirement cannot be satisfied by a single planar surface, as used in Petitioner’s analysis. See, e.g., Pet. 18. Both parties acknowledge the argument that the claimed recesses could be interpreted in at least two ways: The recesses could be (1) only in the packaged body, excluding the contacts; or (2) in the device as a whole. PO Resp. 12 n.6; see also Pet. 18–19 (reviewing the second interpretation). Under both interpretations, Petitioner asks the Board to construe the mounting surface as a plane. See Pet. 18–19. We need not resolve which” slip op. at 10

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

    “For the reasons discussed in the Claim Construction Section, we disagree that the recited mounting surface can be a plane and still satisfy all the claim limitations. Supra § II.B. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s planar mounting surface does not include “recesses” at the side edges of the body as the claim requires. PO Resp. 15. Rather, the planar surface identified by Petitioner sits below the recesses in Kim’s device—i.e., “the depressions or indentations in molded resin package body 37” or the device as a whole. Pet. 41–42; Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3. Petitioner argues that, even under Dr. Baker’s analysis, Kim discloses the claimed mounting surface. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1027). Dr. Baker’s analysis, however, is not consistent with the written description or the claims. Supra § II.B. In its challenge, Petitioner compares Kim’s device to the embodiment shown in Figure 4A of the ’040 patent. See Pet. 38–53. As discussed in the Claim Construction Section, however, of the challenged claim. Supra § II.B. Contrary to the claim’s requirement that the device itself comprise a mounting surface with “recesses and electrical contacts [that] are sized to provide offsets between said mounting surface and said electrical contacts,” both Kim’s device and the Figure 4A embodiment show recesses between the device and a flat surface on which the device is mounted. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 3, with Ex. 1001, Fig. 4A, 5:11–14. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Kim. Claims 2, 3, and 11 also require a “mounting surface” because those” slip op. at 17

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

    “D. Obviousness over Kim and Shirahata Petitioner asserts that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata. Pet. 54–59. Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 12:3–5. This ground relies on Kim for the limitations of claim 1, including the recited “mounting surface.” Pet. 54–59. Petitioner has not shown that Kim teaches the mounting surface in claim 1. Supra § II.C. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and Shirahata.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,879,040 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,879,040
• Asetek Danmark A/S v. Coolit Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2021 · IPR2020-00747 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Lyon and Bezama; the Board did not reach anticipation by Bezama.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’567 Patent (hereinafter, a “POSITA”) would have had the following education and experience: (i) “completed college level course work in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer,” and (ii) “two or more years of experience in designing liquid cooling systems for computers, servers, or other electronic devices, or very similar technology, or one with a more advanced degree in the above fields may have had less practical experience.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner contends that a POSITA “would have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as a B.S. (bachelor of science), or equivalent thereof, in mechanical engineering or a closely related field and possessed at least three years of specialized experience in heat transfer devices for thermal management in electronics and computer systems, or in similar systems.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner represents, however, that none of its arguments or its declarant’s opinions turn on any differences between the parties’ alternative formulations concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 4 n.2. In its Reply, Petitioner does not respond to Patent Owner’s alternative formulation, or identify any issues in this case that might turn on differences between the parties’ alternative formulations. See generally Reply. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed formulation” slip op. at 10

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

    “Considering the intrinsic evidence summarized above, and the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, we determine that the claim limitation “a compliant member matingly engaged with the second side of the housing member” is satisfied when at least a portion of the recited compliant member is fitted within the recessed region defined by the second side of the housing member. This partial construction is sufficient to resolve the issues in dispute. On this record, we decline to address the issue of whether “matingly engaged” could also encompass other types of engagement, and we also decline to construe any other claim terms.9 See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). D.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “139); see also Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 110) (“Lyon teaches every limitation of the challenged claims, except a compliant material on top of the microchannel fins . . . and a recessed, transverse ‘groove’ on the microchannel fins.”). Petitioner relies on Bezama to supply both of these claim elements, and sets forth rationales for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine these teachings of Bezama with Lyon so as to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 67–68 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–124) (contending that Bezama discloses a recessed transverse groove, and that a POSITA would have known that incorporating such a groove into Lyon’s microchannel walls would have improved fluid flow characteristics); 71–73 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128–132) (contending that Bezama discloses that the separator sheet overlying the fins can be made of a compliant material, and that a POSITA would have known that incorporating such a material into Lyon’s Plate 240 would have minimized coolant bypass between the fins and the plate). Patent Owner makes a single patentability argument for claim 1—it contends that neither Lyon nor Bezama discloses a compliant member that is “matingly engaged” with the second side of the housing member. See Resp. 44–49. We find that Petitioner’s contentions regarding the undisputed limitations of claim 1, and the proffered rationales for combining the teachings of Lyon and Bezama, are persuasive and adequately supported. See Pet. 59–77; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–139; see also Paper 11, 8 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”) We now turn to the single disputed limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we find that Lyon and Bezama teach or suggest all limitations of claim 1, and that Petitioner has set forth adequate rationales for combining the teachings of these references in a manner that would satisfy claim 1. Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. b) Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25 Petitioner also identifies portions of Lyon and Bezama that allegedly teach or suggest each limitation recited in claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25, and that these contentions are supported by testimony from Dr. Tilton. See Pet. 78– 84; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–151. Petitioner additionally identifies rationales for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Lyon and Bezama to arrive at the inventions recited in those claims. See id. Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions or set forth any separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 25, but instead relies solely on its arguments with respect to claim 1. See Resp. 49. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding claim 1 are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. On this record, we find that Lyon and Bezama teach or suggest all” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,057,567 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,057,567
• Cirrus Design Corporation v. Hoyt Augustus FlemingAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00762 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 95–124 and 126–131 are unpatentable as obvious over POH, James, and Hoffmann; claim 125 was disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been 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. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “in the art: “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had (1) a degree in Aerospace Engineering or equivalent technical background and (2) familiarity with parachute systems, related sensing systems, and automated flight control.” Pet. 5 (citing the Hoffmann Declaration, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–32). Patent Owner contends the following: [A] person of ordinary skill would have had a degree in aerospace engineering, or an engineering degree coupled with experience evaluating and/or designing aircraft and/or avionics, on February 10, 2009, which is the date [Patent Owner] filed continuation-in-part Application No. 12/368,911. Ex. 1001 at 6:28–15:9 and bibliographical information. The person of ordinary skill also would be familiar with whole-aircraft ballistic parachute systems. PO Resp. 9. The parties are in apparent substantive agreement as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. We do not discern any material differences in the respective assessments of that level by the parties. For purposes of this Decision, we accept and adopt both assessments of the level of ordinary skill in the art and view them as equivalent to one another. We further find that the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references is consistent with the definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by the parties. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner and Mr. Hoffmann explain that a skilled artisan would have recognized that those parameters would have been parts of an evaluation to determine that parachute deployment can occur safely. It follows reasonably and logically that the necessary threshold levels for safe parachute deployment would constitute the “output” of any “evaluation” for deployment of a parachute.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Furthermore, a reference does not “teach away” if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the applicant’s claimed invention. DePuy Spine Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed Cir. 2004)). Here, Patent Owner does not explain how POH’s disclosure, even if it might contemplate overriding an autopilot in some emergency circumstance, constitutes criticism, disparagement, or discouragement of a disclosure, as in James, in which emergency procedures for an aircraft may be initiated automatically or by a pilot, even if such initiation may occur while an autopilot remains engaged. Accordingly, having considered the parties’ respective positions, we conclude that Petitioner accounts adequately in the combined teachings of POH, James, and Hoffmann for the requirements of element (c) of claim 95. See Pet. 47–52.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE47,474 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Eis GmbH v. Novoluto GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2021 · IPR2020-00007 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 17–26 were not shown unpatentable under the Taylor anticipation or Taylor-based obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDenied

    “disclosure of a suction cup “sealingly” receiving the vulva occurs when the vacuum is applied, not before. See Ex. 2034 ¶ 121. We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that “Taylor discloses that arm 26 ‘compresses . . . and then expands bellows 160’ after member 156 ‘sealingly’ engages the vulva.” Reply 9. The single statement in Taylor on which Petitioner relies states, with reference to Figure 3 set forth above in Section II.D.1, “[t]he first stimulator 154 includes a suction cup member 156 that conformingly and sealingly receives the upper portion of the vulva.” Ex. 1004, 5:29–31. We agree with Dr. Jensen that this does not support Petitioner’s conclusion that a seal is achieved before the vacuum is applied, and credit Dr. Jensen’s testimony that reads as follows as consistent with Taylor’s disclosure.” slip op. at 35

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “5. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we deny the portion of Petitioner’s” slip op. at 73

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

    “7 Petitioner presents argument that the term “pressure field generator” should be construed as a means-plus-function term limited to the following structure: at least one first chamber, at least one second chamber, and at least one connection element. Reply 25–26. As we find that it is not necessary to construe this term to resolve the issues before us, we do not address these arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 17

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

    “disclosure of a suction cup “sealingly” receiving the vulva occurs when the vacuum is applied, not before. See Ex. 2034 ¶ 121. We disagree with Petitioner’s conclusion that “Taylor discloses that arm 26 ‘compresses . . . and then expands bellows 160’ after member 156 ‘sealingly’ engages the vulva.” Reply 9. The single statement in Taylor on which Petitioner relies states, with reference to Figure 3 set forth above in Section II.D.1, “[t]he first stimulator 154 includes a suction cup member 156 that conformingly and sealingly receives the upper portion of the vulva.” Ex. 1004, 5:29–31. We agree with Dr. Jensen that this does not support Petitioner’s conclusion that a seal is achieved before the vacuum is applied, and credit Dr. Jensen’s testimony that reads as follows as consistent with Taylor’s disclosure.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,849,061 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,849,061
• Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AGAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00540 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 9, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 42, 44, 73, and 74 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “At least with respect to the portions of Dr. Mazumder’s declaration that supports Intel’s arguments on which we rely for our decision, and any cross-examination relevant to that testimony, we disagree that Dr. Mazumder was improperly recalcitrant, or demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the subject matter to the extent that it would discredit him as a credible expert witness. Given the circumstances, we also do not fault Dr. Mazumder for refreshing his recollection during cross-examination. Thus, we do not agree with PACT that we should, as a general proposition, disregard or give less credit to Dr. Mazumder’s testimony for these reasons.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Intel argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering, and at least three years of experience with multiprocessor systems design.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 72). Dr. Mazumder testifies that this level of skill “was the typical level of experience of persons working with multiprocessor systems, including the design of processor, cache, memory, and bus architectures, at the time of the alleged invention.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 72. Dr. Wolfe does not disagree, and in his declaration he applies Dr. Mazumder’s proposed articulation of the level of ordinary skill. See Ex. 2026 ¶ 40. For this decision, we adopt Dr. Mazumder’s uncontested declaratory testimony, which we find consistent with the level of technical expertise assumed by the ’807 patent disclosure and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Neither Intel nor PACT argues that any claim terms need an explicit construction. See Pet. 5 (“Intel does not believe any terms need to be construed to resolve the prior art issues presented in this Petition.”). However, according to Intel, in the co-pending litigation the parties “stipulated that the preambles are not limiting” for all independent claims challenged in the Petition. Id. (citing Ex. 1014). PACT does not challenge this statement, and whether the preambles are limiting does not appear to be material to Intel’s contentions in the Petition. Absent a controversy, we do not need to explicitly construe any terms for our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that our decision involves interpreting claim language, we discuss that language below in our analysis of the claim limitations.” slip op. at 13

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

    “(quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Indicia on the face of the reference, such as a copyright date or ISBN number, “are considered as part of the totality of evidence.” Id. at 17–18 (citing Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Based on the evidence as a whole, Intel has shown persuasively that the IEEE published the Barroso article in 2000 as part of a physical volume accessible to researchers in the field. In addition to having a copyright notice dated 2000, Barroso is part of a non-consecutively paginated article, bearing the ISBN number “1-58113-232-8.” Ex. 1005, 282. The document also provides instructions for copying and republication, and specifies a copying fee of $5.00. See id. We also find it credible that Mr. Grenier would be familiar with the publication practices of the IEEE in 2000, and the IEEE’s practices with respect to maintaining publication metadata for articles such as Barroso. Although we would reach this conclusion without the new evidence that Intel submitted with its Reply, this new evidence also supports our finding. We find credible the librarian testimony that copies of Barroso were publicly available in two university libraries before the earliest priority date of the ’087 patent. See Exs. 1053, 1054. We also find credible the testimony of Dr. Colwell that Barroso was well-known in the field, and that it is standard practice to submit a physical, bound copy of proceedings at the ISCA conference. Ex. 1055 ¶ 10. So the evidence suggests that about 230 people would have received a bound copy of Barroso at that time. See id. ¶ 9. Dr. Annavaram’s testimony, as a witness appearing on behalf of PACT in another case, corroborates this, although according to him, attendees to the ISCA conferences might have received an electronic copy rather than a bound copy. See Ex. 1051, 165:6–166:5. Thus, we find that Barroso was a printed publication at the time of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,037,807 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,037,807
• Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AGAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · IPR2020-00542 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8, 9, and 12–18 are unpatentable as obvious over the applied Song-based grounds; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, 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.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Paul Franzon, who testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having at least a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering or Computer Science with three years of industry experience in coupled processors, multi-level caches, and caches.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 39). Patent Owner’s declarant adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2051 ¶¶ 16–17.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Claim 1 recites “an algorithm list buffer.” Ex. 1003, 169:9. Both parties agree that the plain meaning of an “algorithm list buffer” is a buffer that stores a list of algorithms. PO Resp. 14; Pet. Reply 4. We disagree with Patent Owner that an “algorithm list buffer” must be in the form of an interlinked list that points to tables that include instructions and data for the algorithm. PO Resp. 11–13 (citing Ex. 1003, code (57), 10:36–40, 19:22– 56, 19:32–59, Fig. 2). Claim 1 does not recite a list that points to tables that include instructions and data for the algorithm, and we decline the invitation to limit claim 1 to unclaimed features. See Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. BioGenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every feature disclosed in the specification [and] it is improper to limit the claim to other, unclaimed features.”). Moreover, and importantly, claim 1 additionally recites that an algorithm “comprises a set of instructions for joint execution.” Ex. 1003, 169:2–4 (emphasis added). Patent Owner overlooks this lexicographic 13 Petitioner alternatively argues that to the extent the claimed “algorithm list buffer” requires “stor[ing] algorithm pointers” as Patent Owner alleges, Song’s fetch unit contains control flow instructions like “Jump to Subroutine” that a POSITA would have understood to point to a new subroutine to be executed. Id. at 5–6. For purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not consider this argument, because we determine that “algorithm list buffer” does not require “storing algorithm pointers.” definition of “algorithm” in presenting its arguments. Taking into account the additional claim limitation that an algorithm “comprises a set of instructions for joint execution,” and the parties’ agreement that an “algorithm list buffer” is a buffer that stores a list of algorithms, claim 1’s “algorithm list buffer” is a buffer that stores a list comprising sets of instructions for joint execution. Claim 1 does not, however, impose any particular organization on how sets of instructions may appear, or be organized, within such a list, or require that the sets have any particular structure at all, apart from appearing in the list and being “for joint execution.”” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “(citing Ex. 1013, 1:62–66; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 99–100), 46–47 (citing Ex. 1013, 4:32–66, 5:42–6:20, Fig. 2; Ex. 1001 ¶ 103). Petitioner directs attention to Arimilli’s description that a multi-level cache allows the lower level cache (L2) to act as “an intermediary between memory 16 and the on-board caches, and can store a much larger amount of information (instructions and data) than the on-board caches can, but at a longer access penalty.” Id. at 45 (quoting Ex. 1013, 1:63–66). Petitioner further contends that the multi-level cache allows the L1 cache to be rapidly accessed for a small amount of data, and the L2 cache to be accessed for a larger amount of data but at a slower pace. Id. (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 100). Petitioner argues, and we agree, that to the extent Song does not teach a “multi-level cache,” “[a]dding a second level of cache to Song’s system, like that disclosed in Arimilli, will allow it to ‘store a much larger amount of information’ (Ex. 1013, 1:62–66) than Song’s cache subsystem, and improve efficiency of data transfer by avoiding long memory access.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 100). Petitioner further argues that a POSITA would have been motivated to “include Arimilli’s cache slices within Song’s caches.” Id. at 46–47. Petitioner argues, and we agree, that read-write operations are improved when the cache is divided into a plurality of slices by allowing “more efficient read and write operations if parallelized into slices rather than serially with the entire cache.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1013, 4:43–66; Ex. 1001 ¶ 103). Petitioner further argues, and we agree, that Arimilli’s sliced cache presents itself as a single cache, confirming that a POSITA would easily integrate Arimilli’s cache slices into Song with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 5:42–6:20, Fig. 2; Ex. 1001 ¶ 103).” slip op. at 45

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Franzon’s testimony that the prior art discloses an “algorithm list buffer,” because “his declaration simply parrots the Petition and he was purposefully evasive and nonresponsive throughout his deposition.” PO Resp. 23–27; Sur-reply 12. We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient for us to give little weight to Dr. Franzon’s declaration. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give Dr. Franzon’s testimony little weight. For example, Patent Owner faults Dr. Franzon for merely “track[ing]” the Petition and failing to provide any independent analysis of the term “algorithm list buffer.” PO Resp. 23. First, we do not find that Dr. Franzon merely copied the Petition, rather, it is most likely that Petitioner incorporated his testimony into the Petition. Pet. Reply 9. Moreover, Patent Owner first raised the meaning of “algorithm list buffer” in connection with its Patent Owner Response, which came after Dr. Franzon’s initial declaration. PO Resp. 14–17. Accordingly, it is not unusual that Dr. Franzon did not analyze the term “algorithm list buffer” in his original declaration, as he all along applied the plain meaning of the term. Ex. 2053, 37:13–24. Lastly, we do not find that the few parts of Dr. Franzon’s cross-examination testimony that Patent Owner points to justifies us concluding that Dr. Franzon was so evasive in answering questions that we should not consider his testimony altogether.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,170,812 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,170,812
• Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AGAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 31, 2021 · IPR2020-00541 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Nicol and Kling; the Board did not decide the withdrawn grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “may be considered, 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.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Carl Sechen, who testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person with at least a Master’s degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering (or equivalent), and three years of experience with processor design.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 83–85). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 19. We accept the assessment offered by Petitioner and adopted by Patent Owner as it is consistent with the ’605 patent and the asserted prior art. We further note that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding the Board may omit specific” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Subsequent to the Decision to Institute, the District Court determined that the phrase “each of the plurality of data processing units . . . adapted for sequentially processing data” means “[s]equential data processors that pass results to one or more additional data processing units to perform additional computations.” Ex. 2026, 17, 19. The parties appear to agree with that construction. PO Resp. 8–9; Pet. Reply 8, 27. Petitioner’s showing in the Petition is consistent with the District Court’s construction, because the construction is similar to Patent Owner’s proffered construction and neither party indicates that there is a substantive difference between Patent Owner’s proffered construction and the District Court’s construction for purposes of deciding the issues in this proceeding. Pet. 30–32; PO Resp. 8–9; Pet. Reply 8, 27. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt the District Court’s claim construction for “each of the plurality of data processing units . . . adapted for sequentially processing data.”” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s arguments focus too narrowly on the individual embodiments shown and described in Nicol Figures 2 and 4, and do not adequately address Petitioner’s showings, which rely on Nicol as a whole. Pet. 25–29, 35–38, 40. For example, the Petition relies on an annotated Figure 4 to show and label different PEs (PE1 and PE2) for purposes of showing the claimed “a first processor” and “a second processor.” Pet. 36, 40. Notably, Petitioner does not rely on the passages related to Figure 4 that Patent Owner points to in arguing that Petitioner improperly mixes and matches embodiments, e.g., Exhibit 1009, 5:60–61, 5:67–6:2. Pet. 35–41. Furthermore, the Petition makes clear that Figure 3, which Petitioner primarily relies on to show setting of the clock frequency for the annotated Figure 4 system illustrates how the claim limitations are met. Id. Patent Owner’s incompatibility arguments are based on glossing over the teachings of Figure 3 altogether, while rigidly focusing only on certain descriptions of Figures 2 and 4. PO Resp. 17–19, 28–30. Indeed, Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony regarding the incompatibility of Nicol’s Figure 2 and Figure 4 embodiments does not mention Nicol Figure 3 at all. Ex. 2024 ¶¶ 37, 48–51. With this in mind, we address Patent Owner’s incompatibility arguments.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “motivated and found it obvious to combine the teachings of Nicol and Kling. Pet. 23–25, 42–45. For example, Petitioner contends, and we agree, that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Kling’s over-temperature protection to Nicol’s multiprocessor system because it was known that overtemperature protection was critical for high-performance multiprocessor systems. Id. at 24, 42 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 127; Ex. 1009, 2:18–22, 3:9–20; Ex. 1010, 1:38–46; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127, 129, 182). Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that a POSITA would have been motivated to use temperature measurements to improve voltage scaling (taught in Nicol) and for over-temperature protection (taught in Kling). Id. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 186). Patent Owner first argues that “[m]ere benefit without any showing of actual motivation is plainly insufficient to suggest a POSITA would combine these reference[s].” PO Resp. 54–55 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶ 82). We are not persuaded by this conclusory argument, because “[i]f a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). In any event, Petitioner explains that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Kling’s over-temperature protection to Nicol’s multiprocessor system because it was known that over-temperature protection was critical for high-performance multiprocessor systems. Pet. 24, 42 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 127; Ex. 1009, 2:18– 22, 3:9–20; Ex. 1010, 1:38–46; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 127, 129, 182). We find, and it is not disputed, that over-temperature protection was critical for high-performance multiprocessor systems. Ex. 1010, 1:42–47 (explaining that if thermal monitoring is not included “the processor may destroy itself by its own heat”). Nicol describes that temperature tracking would be desirable in its power management system (see, e.g., Ex. 1009, 4:11–13 (explaining that “the operating system can reduce the supply voltage even further by tracking temperature and process variations”). Nicol, however, does not specifically provide details, and we give substantial weight to Dr. Sechen’s testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to consult Kling and implement Kling’s over-temperature protection, which was known to be “critical for high-performance systems.” Ex. 1001 ¶ 127.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 9,075,605 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,075,605
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 24, 2021 · IPR2020-01388 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–23 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute only 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) (2018). We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the parties’ briefs and evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) “would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–29). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition or proffer an alternate definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art often is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references, and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner also argues that the Petition does not set forth adequate rationale for modifying Cohen to include Yonebayashi’s alleged recognition of pronouns because Cohen’s system presents a “yes-no question” to the user and the “yes” answer is enough for Cohen’s system to reserve a rental car. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. We agree. Petitioner relies on Cohen’s disclosure of presenting to the user questions the answers to which are one word. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1012, 19:1–10, 19:24–31), 25 (citing Ex. 1012, 19:8–13, 19:24–34). In each of these examples cited by Petitioner, the user responds by saying “yes.” Ex. 1012, 19:11, 19:32. Petitioner does not explain persuasively why it would be obvious to change this one-word response to include additional words, including pronouns, or why this modification would be of any benefit. Furthermore, even if a user’s utterance were to include the other words as suggested by Petitioner, Petitioner does not explain persuasively why it would be obvious to modify Cohen’s system to look to those additional words instead of the uttered “yes” to which Cohen’s system already responds and which remains in Petitioner’s modified utterances. See Pet. 27 (suggesting that the user respond by saying “Yes, I need that” or “Yes, reserve it” (emphases omitted)).” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,269,097
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2021 · IPR2020-01381 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Cohen, Hao, and Kennewick-II, with or without Partovi, taught required limitations of the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability, by a preponderance of the evidence, of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, any objective evidence of non-obviousness.1 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) “would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition or proffer an alternate definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references, and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner does not identify any claim term that requires construction. Pet. 7–8. Likewise, Patent Owner does not identify any specific term requiring construction to reach a resolution. Prelim. Resp. 3. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that no express construction of any term is necessary.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not persuasively established a rational basis for this combination, nor does Petitioner show a reasonable expectation of success. Petitioner’s underlying premise is that Kennewick-II could “enhance how context is determined” in Cohen and Hao, but as explained above, Cohen and Hao do not disclose any determination of context based on the words “Yes” and “need.” Dr. Smyth testifies that “Hao and Cohen could implement Kennewick’s scoring algorithm to determine the most likely context of the user’s utterance where a word may have multiple possible interpretations.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 112. This logic fails for similar reasons. As noted, the relied-on portion of Hao is not even a spoken utterance. Further, we are not persuaded that the words “Yes” and “need” could have multiple interpretations such that applying Kennewick’s scoring algorithm to Cohen and/or Hao makes sense. We are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Kennewick-II to “enhance how context is determined,” as there is nothing to enhance. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner never suggests that Cohen and Hao be modified to include context determination in the first instance. See Prelim. Resp. 22. Similarly, Petitioner does not explain persuasively how Kennewick’s scoring algorithm would improve the alleged context determinations based on the single words “Yes” and “need.” Id. Petitioner does not persuade us that Cohen or Hao’s ability to recognize “Yes” and “need” and act upon those words requires context determination. Petitioner has not shown how Kennewick-II would improve the interaction.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,626,703

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.