- Stodge, Inc. D/B/A Postscript v. Attentive Mobile Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00069 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 15–30 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“reasoning in support of the proposed combination lacks rational underpinning. Specifically, we find that Petitioner has not adequately explained why one skill in the art would be motivated to combine Oliver, Agrawal, and Molinet as proposed. We further find that Petitioner’s reasoning is based on improper hindsight reasoning and that Petitioner’s reasoning is not supported by the concept that applying known techniques for their known functions —per KSR— provides sufficient rationale for the proposed combination.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“method of determining if advertising activity is legitimate, i.e., only an interested or “real” user as compared to a “click” bot, could be used with Oliver’s method, let alone how extrapolating site data that results in more accurate advertising fees would enhance the reach of Oliver’s promotions to more users. See id. at 1:47–54 (Agrawal explaining that “click-bots can be configured to mimic real network traffic by specifying parameters . . . result[ing] in inaccurate fees being charged for advertising services.”). Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Houh’s testimony doesn’t cure these deficiencies in Petitioner’s reasoning as that testimony simply repeats the assertions in the Petition without further elaboration. Cf. Pet. 28–29, with Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). Moreover, Oliver’s promotions are already targeted to users who are interested in Oliver’s products be virtue of the fact that the users are” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner
“the server-based software techniques of Oliver and Molinet at Agrawal’s Advertising System 120” “to obtain the benefits of each system.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 95). Petitioner’s reasoning does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would make the proposed modifications and instead appears to be based on improper hindsight reasoning. Specifically, Petitioner does not adequately address which benefits of each system a person of skill in the art would be motivated to combine and what the advantages of combining functionalities of the references into a single server would be.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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) (in the context of an inter partes review, applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,416,897 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · May 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00155 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 15 are obvious over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’811 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). At this juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. 10 The current record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, it is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’811 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits that “no special constructions are necessary” beyond the plain meaning of the claims. Pet. 5. For the limitations “proximity,” “number based on signal strengths,” and “device-specific target location,” Petitioner asserts the Petition shows how these features “are met in context of their plain language and also in context of the specification, and where applicable, the file history.” Id. at 5–6. On this preliminary record, Patent Owner “agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 2. After reviewing the evidence and argument presented by the parties, we determine that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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,” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“conclusory or achieved only through hindsight, Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda to achieve the claimed device-specific target location and performing actions on the portable device as a result of determining that that device is in proximity of the device-specific target location.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,341,811 - PTAB · May 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00153 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 17–20, and 24–26 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda for at least claims 1–10 and 26.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). At this juncture, Patent Owner does not argue the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Petitioner because, based on the current record, it is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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) (2020). Under this standard, we construe 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. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceeding, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. 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))). Petitioner submits that “no special constructions are necessary” beyond the plain meaning of the claims. Pet. 4. Similarly, for purposes of their Response, Patent Owner states that “no formal claim construction is necessary.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Currently, where neither party proposes any claim language, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner’s reasoning above lacks a rational underpinning or is gleaned only from the ’583 patent’s Specification. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as [a conclusion of obviousness] takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”). As another example, Petitioner relies on the prior art teachings, Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, and the knowledge and skills of the ordinarily skilled artisan to support its conclusions that the modifications Petitioner proposes would have been implemented by the ordinarily skilled artisan using known techniques and with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 25 (Petitioner arguing that “[g]iven the familiar features/technologies taught by Spain-I-Hunzinger (and Nanda) and state of art . . . a POSITA would [have] had the skills/knowledge/rationale to consider/implement such modifications with a reasonable expectation of success.”) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–146). With respect to Petitioner’s overall rationale to combine, we acknowledge that Hunzinger and Nanda may provide different specific improvements over Spain-I, yet we understand Petitioner’s position to be that Hunzinger and Nanda show that features such as user selected target locations and numerical and algorithmic ID signal strength comparisons were well-known in the art. See Pet. 19 n.10. (“Indeed, an invention is likely obvious where it merely combines familiar elements according to at 416). Furthermore, Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the level and knowledge of skill in the art is unrebutted at this early stage and we do not discern any persuasive evidence on this preliminary record that modifying Spain-I’s mobile device to achieve the user selected specific target location or location-based actions of Hunzinger and Nanda would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19). Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we find persuasive Petitioner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have, for at least the above discussed reasons, been motivated to combine the teachings of Spain- I, Hunzinger, and Nanda, and would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,170,583 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · PGR2024-00004 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–24 and all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–11, 13–17, and 20–24 are obvious over Emma, Butt, and Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine, for the reasons set forth below, that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds presented. Therefore, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering . . . [a]lternatively, a POSITA could have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, physics, or a related engineering or discipline, plus at least two years of experience working with control circuits, sensors, kitchen appliances, or similar fields. ordinary skill in the art and states that “[t]he differences do not matter for purposes of this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’746 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“level of smoke” Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner expressly indicate that any claim terms require express construction. See Petition 13–14; Prelim. Resp 5. However, Petitioner contends that for the phrase “level of smoke,” recited in claims 1, 15, and 22, “Patent Owner interprets ‘level of smoke’ as merely detecting smoke.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009, 6). Patent Owner argues that it “does not offer a special definition” and “asked the [district] court to give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 5, n 2. Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would similarly understand ‘level of smoke’ when read in the full context of the intrinsic record.” Id. in light of the specification, we understand “level of smoke” as a predetermined level of smoke “indicative of a dangerous condition” as the specification of the ’746 patent explains. Ex. 1001, 15:43–44, see also id. at 15:63–65 (The ’746 patent describing “[t]he determination of a level of smoke corresponding to a dangerous condition.”). To the extent the parties disagree, they may address this issue more directly in subsequent briefing. slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“POSITA to reasonably combine Emma with a smoke sensor reference.” Prelim. Resp. 44. We agree that Emma does not disclose a smoke sensor, but Petitioner has provided other prior art references, namely Butt and Smith, and presented several reasons, namely safety reasons, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider adding a smoke detector from Butt and Smith to Emma’s microwave oven. Pet. 24, 74–75. Obviousness is not determined from the perspective of the inventors or authors of a single prior art reference. Rather, obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Petitioner argues, for instance, that Butt teaches the fire safety aspects of “a controller for interrupting a supply of electricity to an appliance upon detection of a trigger, such as [s]moke.” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1015, 1:16– 18). Dr. Horenstein testifies that from a safety perspective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the additional kitchen-safety appliance features of Butt with the Emma microwave/refrigerator so as to enable the Emma microwave to shut down upon the detection of smoke, and to reenable the Emma microwave for a further cooking session when the smoke had cleared.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 124. Where Butt arguably discloses a smoke detector external to an appliance, Dr. Horenstein testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to “Smith to include the smoke sensor in operative connection with the microwave oven with the reset functionality disclosed by Butt for the added benefit of reusing the microwave oven.” Id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added). each directed towards shutting down a component of the device in response to a sensor output indicative of an unwanted condition.” Id. ¶ 127. Dr. Horenstein testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have combined the elements as disclosed by known methods for the purposes of modifying Emma’s microwave / refrigerator combination to include Smith’s smoke sensor to be operatively connected with its cooking area and to include Butt’s smoke sensor and reset functionality.” Id. ¶ 126. Dr. Horenstein explains that inclusion of Butt’s reset functionality with Smith’s smoke sensor operatively connected with the cooking area into Emma would result in such elements merely performing the same function as they do separately, i.e., sensing smoke to withdraw electrical power from an electrical cooking appliance and then re-enabling the electrical cooking appliance. Id. Moreover, Dr. Horenstein testifies that the prior art, for example, Butt, specifically recognized the need to solve the problem of fires in the home started by cooking appliances. Id. ¶ 128 (citing Ex. 1015, 1:22–44). Butt explains, that “[h]ome fires are a serious problem in the United States. The National Fire Protection Association reports that between the years 1999- 2002, for example, there were 114,000 reported home fires associated with cooking alone.” Ex. 1015, 122–25. Similarly, Smith expressly teaches “[a] method and apparatus for anticipating the occurrence of a fire in the cooking cavity of a microwave oven.” Ex. 1014, Abstract.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,674,746 - PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · PGR2024-00003 · APJ Scott A Daniels · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–28 and all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 13, 15, 20, 22, and 24–25 are obvious over Emma, Butt, and Smith.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). A post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine, for the reasons set forth below, that Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds presented. Therefore, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering . . . [a]lternatively, a POSITA could have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, physics, or a related engineering or discipline, plus at least two years of experience working with control circuits, sensors, kitchen appliances, or similar fields. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 50; Ex. 1023 ¶ 6). Patent Owner provides a similar level of ordinary skill in the art and states that “[t]he differences do not matter for purposes of this Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 4. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’745 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“level of smoke” Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require express construction. See Petition 13–14; Prelim. Resp 5. However, Petitioner contends that for the phrases “level of smoke” and “amount of smoke,” recited in claims 1, 15, and 24, it has “applie[d] what it understands Patent Owner contends is the meaning of this term in this Petition[,] and shows below the claims are invalid under Patent Owner’s construction.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1009, 6). Patent Owner argues that it has “does not offer a special definition” and “asked the [district] court to give these terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 5, n 2. Patent Owner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would similarly understand ‘level of smoke’ when read in the full context of the intrinsic record.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, reading the plain language of the claims in light of the specification, we understand “level of smoke,” or amount of smoke, in the claims generally as a predetermined level of smoke “indicative of a dangerous condition” as the specification of the ’745 patent explains. Ex. 1001, 15:48–49, see also id. at 16:1–2 (The ’745 patent describing “[t]he determination of a level of smoke corresponding to a dangerous condition.”). To the extent the parties disagree, they may expressly address this issue more directly in subsequent briefing. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“from Butt and Smith to Emma’s microwave oven. Pet. 24. Obviousness is not determined from the perspective of the inventors or authors of a single prior art reference. Rather, obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art. It is only that hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art. Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Petitioner argues, for instance, that Butt teaches the fire safety aspects of “a controller for interrupting a supply of electricity to an appliance upon detection of a trigger, such as [s]moke.” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1015,1:16– 18). Dr. Horenstein testifies that from a safety perspective, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “combine[d] the additional kitchen-safety appliance features of Butt with the Emma microwave/refrigerator so as to enable the Emma microwave to shut down upon the detection of smoke, and to reenable the Emma microwave for a further cooking session when the smoke had cleared.” Ex. 1023 ¶ 124. Where Butt arguably discloses a smoke detector external to an appliance, Dr. Horenstein testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to “Smith to include the smoke sensor in operative connection with the microwave oven with the reset functionality disclosed by Butt for the added benefit of reusing the microwave oven.” Id. ¶ 127 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,674,745 - Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01434 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’898 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have been a person with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design. That person would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, in combination with training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies and human interface design (Ex. 1003, ¶45). Alternatively, that person could have also had a Master of Science degree in a relevant academic discipline with less than a year of related work experience in the same discipline (Ex. 1003, ¶45). More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa (Ex. 1003, ¶45). Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The general rule is that “the indefinite article ‘a’ means ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311 (2023); see also Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“An exception to the general rule that ‘a’ . . . means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.”). And, the use of “the” (as in “the detailed view”) indicates that the recited part of the claim is a reference back to the corresponding part of a previous recitation (i.e., “a detailed view”). Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc., 84 F.4th 963, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Similar to this court’s holding that ‘said’ indicates part of a claim limitation refers to the corresponding part of a previously claimed limitation, . . . , the use of ‘the’ also indicates the claimed term refers to an antecedent term.”). However, whether “a detailed view” means “one or more detailed views” is a separate issue from whether the claims require the same detailed view to have both of the recited components. See Finjan, 84 F.4th at 974 (“[T]hat is a separate issue from whether the claims require the same component to perform multiple functions or satisfy multiple limitations of a claim.”). The plain language of “a detailed view” followed by the recitation of “the detailed view” comprising two components suggests that the “detailed view” must be tied to both of those components. See id. (“In [Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Nokia Sols. & Networks Oy, 15 F.4th 1136, 1143–44 (Fed. Cir. 2021)], we explained that ‘[a]s a matter of plain language, reciting ‘a computer’ (or a ‘first computer’) that performs a function, and then further reciting that ‘the computer’ (or ‘said first computer’) performs multiple additional functions, suggests that such ‘computer’ must be tied to all those functions.’ . . . This same rationale is relevant in analyzing the claims here.”); see also id. (The court agreeing with SonicWall’s argument “that even if the reference to ‘a computer’ may mean ‘one or more computers,’ the subsequent references to ‘the computer’ can only be satisfied by the same ‘one or more computers’ that satisfied the first limitation.”); Salazar, 64 F.4th at 1317 (“We agree with the district court that while the claim term ‘a microprocessor’ does not require there be only one microprocessor, the subsequent limitations referring back to ‘said microprocessor’ require that at least one microprocessor be capable of performing each of the claimed functions.”). We determine that, even if plural detailed views are allowed, the claim requires a single one of those views to have both a graph representation and a selectable data sharing option.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. For the reasons discussed above, we construe independent claims 1 and 23 as requiring the “detailed view” to have both a graph representation and a selectable data sharing option. See supra Section II.C. Petitioner does not identify adequately any disclosure in Molettiere of displaying a single view having both components. Thus, Petitioner has not shown adequately that Molettiere is anticipatory. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not articulate adequately any obviousness contentions regarding how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relied-on figures of Molettiere to arrive at the recited detailed view having both components. See Prelim. Resp. 9–10; Pet. 10–14. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to independent claim 1 and independent claim 23 as anticipated by or obvious over Molettiere. For the same reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to dependent claims 2– 11, 18, 20–22, 25–34, 41, and 43–45 as anticipated by or obvious over Molettiere. E. The Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 16, 18, 23, 26, 32, 33,” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,898 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · PGR2023-00049 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1, 9–15, 21, 29–38, 53, 61–67, 73, and 81–91 on all petition grounds after finding at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent.” General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. Petitioner argues, and we agree, that “the three Petitions are not directed to all the same claims and are not cumulative” (Paper 2, 4), as shown, for example, in Petitioner’s table of exemplary distinct features in each set of claims challenged in the three Petitions (see supra Section III.A). As Petitioner explains, the –00047 Petition challenges 34 claims not covered in the remaining Petitions; the –00048 Petition challenges 32 claims not covered in the remaining Petitions; and the –00049 Petition challenges 37 claims not covered in the remaining Petitions. Paper 2, 4. Further, prior to the day that Petitioner concurrently filed all three Petitions, Petitioner had not previously filed a petition against the ’626 patent. Accordingly, we determine that the first General Plastic factor does not weigh against institution.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Section 325(d) provides that, in determining whether to institute a post-grant review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”).” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition (as noted above, Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response), we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that at least one claim of the ’626 patent is 1 A Certificate of Correction issued on June 13, 2023, concerning claims 42, 52, 84, 95, and 105 of the ’626 patent. Ex. 1001 (last page). 2 Petitioner concurrently filed three Petitions collectively requesting post-grant review of claims 1–105 (i.e., all claims) of the ’626 patent, namely, PGR2023-00047, PGR2023-00048, and PGR2023-00049. See Paper 2. We decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of post-grant review as to any of these three Petitions due to the multiple petitions themselves, as discussed below in Section III. unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review as to the Challenged Claims of the ’626 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the effective filing date of the ’626 patent, “would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in construction connector design/development.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · PGR2023-00048 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1, 22–27, 39–45, 50–53, 74–79, 92–98, and 103–105 on all grounds; the Board found the petition showed at least one claim more likely than not unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“2. Factors Two Through Five Under the second, third, fourth, and fifth General Plastic factors, we consider, in general, whether the timing of the filing of multiple petitions presents the potential for unfairness, inefficiency, or prejudice. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. In this case, Petitioner concurrently filed all three Petitions—there is no staggering, follow-on, or other delay in filing of the Petitions relative to one another. See Paper 1, 4–5. Moreover, no entity has filed a previous petition against the ’626 patent, and all asserted prior art in the three Petitions was put in play on the same day. Id. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that “no time has elapsed between the Petitions, and [Petitioner] has not gained any advantage by using earlier preliminary responses or institution decisions as a ‘roadmap’ for its Petitions” (id.). Accordingly, we determine that the second, third, fourth, and fifth General Plastic factors do not weigh against institution.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“post-grant review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). In applying the two-part framework, we consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18. “If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition (as noted above, Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response), we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that at least one claim of the ’626 patent is 1 A Certificate of Correction issued on June 13, 2023, concerning claims 42, 52, 84, 95, and 105 of the ’626 patent. Ex. 1001 (last page). 2 Petitioner concurrently filed three Petitions collectively requesting post-grant review of claims 1–105 (i.e., all claims) of the ’626 patent, namely, PGR2023-00047, PGR2023-00048, and PGR2023-00049. See Paper 1. We decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of post-grant review as to any of these three Petitions due to the multiple petitions themselves, as discussed below in Section III. unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review as to the Challenged Claims of the ’626 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - PTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · PGR2023-00047 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–8, 16–20, 28, 46–49, 53–60, 68–72, 80, and 99–102 on all asserted §103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Instituted
“1. Factor One Under the first General Plastic factor, we consider “whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent.” General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. Petitioner argues, and we agree, that “the three Petitions are not directed to all the same claims and are not cumulative” (Paper 2, 4), as shown, for example, in Petitioner’s table of exemplary distinct features in each set of claims challenged in the three Petitions (see supra Section III.A). As Petitioner explains, the –00047 Petition challenges 34 claims not covered in the remaining Petitions; the –00048 Petition challenges 32 claims not covered in the remaining Petitions; and the –00049 Petition challenges 37 claims not covered in the remaining Petitions. Paper 2, 4. Further, prior to the day that Petitioner concurrently filed all three Petitions, Petitioner had not previously filed a petition against the ’626 patent. Accordingly, we determine that the first General Plastic factor does not weigh against institution. 2. Factors Two Through Five Under the second, third, fourth, and fifth General Plastic factors, we consider, in general, whether the timing of the filing of multiple petitions presents the potential for unfairness, inefficiency, or prejudice. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. In this case, Petitioner concurrently filed all three Petitions—there is no staggering, follow-on, or other delay in filing of the Petitions relative to one another. See Paper 2, 4–5. Moreover, no entity has filed a previous petition against the ’626 patent, and all asserted prior art in the three Petitions was put in play on the same day. Id. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that “no time has elapsed between the Petitions, and [Petitioner] has not gained any advantage by using earlier preliminary responses or institution decisions as a ‘roadmap’ for its Petitions” (id.). Accordingly, we determine that the second, third, fourth, and fifth General Plastic factors do not weigh against institution. 3. Factors Six and Seven Under the sixth and seventh General Plastic factors, we consider “the finite resources of the Board” and “the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review.” General Plastic, Paper 19 at 16. “The sixth and seventh factors are efficiency considerations.” See CTPG 56 (noting that the Director’s discretion under § 314(a) is informed by 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), which requires “the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter”). Petitioner argues that “there would be no excessive burden on the Board’s finite resources or Patent Owner in instituting all three Petitions”: Simpson is filing three Petitions against a patent containing 105 claims. Each Petition applies the same analysis for the two independent claims, 1 and 53, so as not to gain any advantages for these claims from the separate Petitions. While this similarity does not make the Petitions redundant due to the different claims each Petition addresses, it does minimize the burden on the Board and Patent Owner. Paper 2, 5. Petitioner also argues that, because the three Petitions were filed on the same day, “their respective [trial] schedules may be aligned and will not hinder the Board’s ability to issue a final determination within one year of institution,” particularly as these proceedings may lend themselves to consolidation. Id. We agree with Petitioner’s above arguments. In the context of these cases, and at this juncture, we foresee no unreasonable burden on the Board in managing these three cases and timely issuing Final Written Decision(s). Accordingly, we determine that the sixth and seventh General Plastic” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstituted
“Under the first part of the § 325(d) framework, we find the evidence of record demonstrates that Yamaguchi, Cullen, and Adams previously were not presented to the Office in this case. See Ex. 1001, code (56); see generally Ex. 1002. In addition, Petitioner argues persuasively that “[t]hese new references disclose a feature—a back flange extending from an edge of a top flange—that was deemed by the Examiner to be missing in the cited art and was the basis for the ’867 patent claims remaining patentable after the FWD in the -00109 proceeding.” Pet. 14. Petitioner also argues persuasively that, “[a]lthough Bundy was previously considered by the Office, Bundy is used as a secondary reference to disclose limitations— spacing a channel-shaped portion of a hanger from the wall frame to receive two layers of 5/8-inch-thick drywall and providing the channel-shaped portion with a stop—that were not material to the alleged patentability of the claims during prosecution.” Id. Petitioner further argues persuasively that Patent Owner “made no arguments during examination against the combinations of prior-art applied” in the three Petitions (id.). Based on the record before us, we determine that the evidence does not demonstrate that the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Because of this determination, we need not and do not consider the second prong of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Accordingly, we decline to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition (as noted above, Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response), we determine that Petitioner has established that it is more likely than not that at least one claim of the ’626 patent is 1 A Certificate of Correction issued on June 13, 2023, concerning claims 42, 52, 84, 95, and 105 of the ’626 patent. Ex. 1001 (last page). 2 Petitioner concurrently filed three Petitions collectively requesting post-grant review of claims 1–105 (i.e., all claims) of the ’626 patent, namely, PGR2023-00047, PGR2023-00048, and PGR2023-00049. See Paper 2. We decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of post-grant review as to any of these three Petitions due to the multiple petitions themselves, as discussed below in Section III. unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review as to the Challenged Claims of the ’626 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. Dba Rakuten RewardsSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2022-01250 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 7–22 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable because the petition did not identify corresponding structure for limitation 23A.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone knowledgeable in information technology and networking” and “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately 2 years of experience working in information technology and networking.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 111). Without agreeing that it is proper, Patent Owner and its expert apply Petitioner’s proposal. See PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 33–34.). For the purposes of this Decision, we continue to use the same assessment offered by Petitioner that we adopted in our preliminary assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision, as it is consistent with the ’960 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“exception to a security rule” and/or “exceptions to security rules.” See e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:18, 15:29. In its Response, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the phrase “exception to a security rule” is “an instance in which a security rule does not apply.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he ’960 patent does not set out any special definition of ‘exception,’ ‘exception to a security rule,’ or ‘exceptions to security rules.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–43). Patent Owner also indicates that “the ’960 patent describes that exceptions to security rules may represent an ‘anomaly’ from general circumstances, or a situation in which a security rule may be permissibly violated such as once an administrator or manager grants approval for a violation.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:58–6:15, 7:22–39, 9:51–10:18). Patent Owner asserts that “[a]n exception to a security rule can be associated with adjusting risk indicated by the security rule,” and that “exceptions may indicate instances in which risk should be scored differently than what is specified by the general security rule and to which the security rule does not apply.” PO Resp. 10. In its Reply, Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “exception to a security rule” is “an instance in which a security rule does not apply,” and that this agreed upon meaning is consistent with the ’960 patent in that that “minimum security baseline rules may include minimum security policies.” Pet. Reply 2–3. Given the absence of a special definition of these phrases in the ’960 patent, the ’960 patent’s indication that minimum security baseline rules may include minimum security policies, the lack of any testimony by the parties’ experts contesting a general understanding of the term in the art, and the agreement by the parties as to the plain meaning of the term, we adopt for purposes of this Decision that the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrases “exception to a security rule” or “exceptions to security rules” mean “an instance in which a security rule does not apply.” See PO Resp. 8–16; Pet. Reply 2–5; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 41–57; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 114–115, 134, 185; Ex. 2006, 62:2–24. 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
“means plus function limitations. Ex. 1001, 18:22–37. 35 U.S.C. § 112 “allows a patentee to express a claim limitation by reciting a function to be performed rather than by reciting structure or materials for performing that function.” Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp., 325 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A term written in means-plus-function form is construed to cover “the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof” for performing the recited functions. 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. Use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that a claim term is a means-plus-function limitation. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This presumption may be rebutted if the claim recites structure sufficient to perform the described functions in their entirety. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–1260; see Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that one may still consider the written description to “inform the analysis of whether the claim recites sufficiently definite structure to overcome the presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim”) (overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1339). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s construction of the means-plus-function limitations in the challenged claims. Dec. 15. Each of claim 23’s limitations is presumptively written in means-plus-function form, and prior to institution, Patent Owner did not attempt to rebut this presumption and did not point to anything in claim 23’s limitations that articulated structure sufficient to perform the described functions in their entirety. Id. (citing TriMed v. Stryker, 514 F.3d at 1259–1260). Post institution, Patent Owner agrees the terms should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6 as means-plus-function terms, that the specification describes appropriate corresponding structure for each of these terms, and that each of these terms is not indefinite. PO Resp. 17 (citing Pet. 18–20; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–133). For some of the claim terms, Patent Owner identifies “a more complete listing of corresponding structure.” Id. In its Reply, Petitioner does not object to Patent Owner’s identification of corresponding structure. See generally Pet. Reply.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify Andres’s system in view of Dodd’s teachings to provide the option to consider the difficulty in fixing a particular vulnerability.” Pet. 22. Petitioner points out that “Andres teaches a vulnerability remediation module 127 which ‘provides automated ticketing and workflow that manages remediation activities’ (Ex. 1003, 19:39–41) and that risk scores should inform the remediation process, such that administrators can ‘first take the remediation steps that will most significantly improve the overall security of the network.’” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003, 18:21–23). Petitioner asserts that “Dodd similarly teaches ‘when multiple vulnerabilities have the same computed risk, a user of the security audit system can address those that are easier to fix first.’” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 37). “Such remediation prioritization,” Petitioner argues, “allows an administrator to be more effective in his or her responsibilities even with the limited time and resources of many administrators.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 18:23–25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–140). Petitioner asserts that “Dodd provides the option to use a ‘fix difficulty value’ for the vulnerability to adjust a risk value associated with that particular vulnerability.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 36). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood Dodd’s optional adjustment of risk values based on the vulnerability fix difficulty to be an obvious addition to Andres.” Pet. 23. “Indeed,” Petitioner argues, “the same problem of effectively prioritizing remediation actions described in Andres underlies the adjustment process of Dodd.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 10, 23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 141–142). Petitioner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by the common goals of Andres and Dodd (utilizing risk scoring to inform/prioritize vulnerability remediation) to incorporate Dodd’s adjustment process into Andres’s system.” Pet. 24. “By adding Dodd’s option to adjust the risk score by a fix difficulty value to Andres’s system,” Petitioner argues, “a user of the combined system could more effectively prioritize the easiest to fix vulnerabilities, and therefore decrease the number of vulnerabilities threatening the network.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 37). “This would facilitate the early resolution of easier vulnerabilities,” Petitioner argues, “before they can be exploited in an attack and allow the ‘limited time and resources’ of administrators to be focused on the more difficult vulnerabilities.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 18:23–25). Petitioner argues that the enhanced prioritization “would also allow administrators to incorporate business factors such as cost into decisions about remediation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–144).” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,962,960 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,962,960
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.