- PTAB · Nov 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Sturman and Ho.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“(“Decision Denying Institution” or “DDI”). Petitioner filed a request for Director Review and the Director vacated and remanded our Decision Denying Institution. Paper 11 (Petitioner’s Request for Director Review); Paper 12 (“Remand Dec.” or “Remand Decision”). Specifically, the Director directed that we: shall issue a new decision on institution resolving the claim construction of “a non-promotional background object.” Consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Slyde Analytics, LLC, IPR2024-00040, Paper 14 at 7–8 (Vidal Aug. 2, 2024) (discussing the Phillips framework). The Board shall consider all remaining necessary issues, and determine whether to institute trial consistent with this decision. Id. at 7–8 (footnote omitted).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Sturman and Ho. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–10 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’089 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. See Prelim. Resp. 26–36. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 42
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“draws a distinction between foreground and background objects. Specifically, the prosecution history makes it clear that foreground objects are “in the forefront of the game play as primary objects to be manipulated or used during game play” and that background objects are “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components.” Ex. 1002, 85. However, whether an object is “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components” is based solely on the subjective perspective of the user. That is, what one user may consider a primary focus or expected object, another might consider outside the primary focus and unexpected. As the Director made clear in the Remand Decision, it is “improper[]” to have a claim construction “based on the subjective perspective of a user.” Remand Dec. 7; see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“We are not prepared to assign a meaning to a patent claim that depends on the state of mind of the accused infringer.”). Accordingly, we cannot and do not adopt that as our construction of the term background. Not finding a construction of “background” based on the intrinsic evidence, we turn to the extrinsic evidence. See Remand Dec. 7 (“[T]he Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary.” (emphasis added)). Specifically, as part of the Decision Denying Institution, we considered various dictionary definitions of the word “background.” According to those definitions, “background” refers to “[t]he part of a pictorial representation that appears to be in the distance and that provides relief for the principal objects in the foreground.” Ex. 3002 (AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY); see also Ex. 3003 (“the scenery or ground behind something,” “the part of a painting representing what lies behind objects in the foreground”) (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY). Consistent with those dictionary definitions, we construe the term “background” to mean the part of a pictorial representation that is not in the foreground. The prosecution history provides more useful guidance as to what a “non-promotional” object is. As the applicant argued in the Amendment discussed above, a non-promotional object is one “which does not have an ‘area’ in which advertisements directly appear, but instead represents a ‘hot spot’ that, upon activation, causes ‘hidden promotional content’ to then appear.” Ex. 1002, 85–86. In other words, a non-promotional object does not display a promotional message unless the hotspot is activated. This understanding of the meaning of non-promotional is consistent with an earlier argument (Ex. 1002, 113–25) the applicant made during the prosecution of the ’089 patent.12 At that time, the applicant argued: In an exemplary embodiment, the location in-game may be represented by a non-promotional object, such as a blank chalk board depicted in the background of the gaming environment. See Applicant’s Specification at ¶ [0045]. Upon activating the hot spot (e.g., by throwing a dart at the chalk board), a promotional message may be drawn on the chalk board and displayed to the user. See id. In other words, Applicant’s amended claims 15 and 22, inter alia, may present promotional content once the game user activates, unknowingly, a “hot spot” associated with a non-promotional object—the non-promotional object is not an ordinary or visible place for advertisement, the 12 This argument was made on December 2, 2011, which is prior to the amendment adding the term background on July 15, 2013. Compare Ex. 1002, 117 (then pending claim 15 without the word “background”) with id. at 80 (amendment adding “background” to claim 15). user does not know that the object has a hidden hot spot, and the user does not know that activating the hidden “hot spot” will display promotional content. Ex. 1002, 122 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Moreover, even if we did consider only the specific references addressed in the Preliminary Response, we would not reach a different outcome. Patent Owner focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 13–19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”); Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Alexander Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2024) (Vidal) (determining the Board erred when “rather than identify material, substantive overlap between the arguments presented in the Petitions and those previously presented to the Office, the Board’s analysis relied on its discussion of high-level similarities but lacked detailed reasoning”); Wolfspeed, Inc. v . The Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2023) (Vidal) (vacating the Board’s decision when the “analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework did not consider sufficiently the material differences between” the art the Office previously considered and the art the Petition cited). Nor were any of Petitioner’s Reply arguments improper. We expressly authorized Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments that the prior art relied on in the Petition was substantially the same as prior art that was considered. Ex. 3005 (Email from the Board to the parties) (“Petitioner is authorized to file a preliminary reply brief addressing 1) Patent Owner’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. 325(d). . . .”). Moreover, given the facts of this proceeding, it is not reasonable to require Petitioner to anticipate “substantially the same prior art” arguments and address them in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument is a proper reply argument. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,688,089 - PTAB · Jan 10, 2018 · IPR2016-01404 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 33, 34, 39, 46, and 48 not shown unpatentable: Bensimon did not disclose the claimed restricted-access mode, and Takahashi did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner states––and Patent Owner does not dispute––that “a person having ordinary skill in the art of secure computer data storage devices (i.e. in the art for the ’459 patent) would have had (i) a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of experience in the design or research of secure computer data storage devices.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s statement of the level skill of an ordinary artisan at the time and adopt it as our own. Although Patent Owner does not directly address an ordinary artisan’s level of skill, Petitioner’s description of the level of skill accords with that of Patent Owner’s witness Dr. Goldschlag. Compare id., with Ex. 2004 ¶ 21 (opining that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or equivalent training, as well as two to three years of technical experience in the field of computer security and storage devices.”). We further find the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“within an electronic circuit embedded within the storage device.” Ex. 1001, 9:58–59, 10:34–35. Although these claims are not at issue in this case, they evince the patentee’s desire to employ each of the terms “unique” and “specific” where each is intended. It is well established that ordinarily different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings. . . .”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Further, the Specification describes that, depending on the selected security level, a cryptographic key can be generated using in part “device-specific security information derived from the unique format information of the removable storage device.” Ex. 1001, 3:66–4:1. The Specification thus describes the format information of the removable storage device as “unique” but describes the security information of the device merely as “specific,” not “unique.” Finally, the Specification discloses “for exemplary purposes only” an embodiment wherein “a unique, device-specific security information can be generated from the unique characteristics of the underlying storage medium.” Id. at 7:43–47 (emphasis added). The Specification thus describes device-specific security information as unique in a particular, non-limiting example and explicitly indicates that the device-specific security information derived in that example is “unique.” See id. In light of the foregoing description, we disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that “specific” in the context of the claim term “device-specific security information” means unique. Construing “specific” to mean “unique” as Patent Owner urges would render meaningless the subsequent use of “unique” in claims 9 and 17, without a clear indication in the Specification of such an intent. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Instead, we accord the word “specific” its ordinary and customary meaning and construe “device-specific security information” as meaning “information particular to, but not necessarily unique to, a storage device and used to secure access to the storage device.” Although we construe the disputed term “device-specific security information,” our determination that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the Instituted Claims are unpatentable is not dependent upon our construction, as detailed below.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner has not identified in Bensimon explicit or inherent disclosure of the claimed restricted-access mode. Claim 1 requires operating in restrictedaccess mode “when the storage device does not have the device-specific security information.” Ex. 1001, 9:24–26. Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, either alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as meeting the claimed device-specific security information. Reply 13; Pet. 22. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of claim 1, Petitioner is required to show that Bensimon discloses operating in restricted-access mode when the storage device does not have the read/write password, or alternatively does not have the combination of the read/write password and password-enabling flag. See, e.g., In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding that in order to show anticipation, claimed elements must be arranged as required by the claim). Petitioner does not make the required showing. As Petitioner argues: “these claims recite operating in one mode if ‘the device-specific security information’ (i.e., that instance of device-specific security information) is present, and operating in another mode if ‘the device-specific security information’ (i.e., that instance of device-specific security information) is not present.” Reply 16. Petitioner identifies Bensimon’s read/write password, alone or in combination with the password-enabling flag, as the device-specific security information, yet Petitioner does not identify in Bensimon an explicit disclosure that Bensimon’s storage device operates in the claimed restricted-access mode when the read/write password is absent from the device. See id. at 16–22. Rather, Bensimon describes two different possible modes of operation when the read/write password is absent from the storage device, namely either no protection or write protection. Ex. 1004, 5:33–39, 6:3–4, 6:13–29. Contrary to the claim language, operation in Bensimon’s write protection mode depends upon the presence of the write protection password, not upon the absence of the read/write password and password-enabling flag (i.e. the claimed device-specific security information). Ex. 1004, 6:13–23; see also Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 18) (asserting the claimed restricted-access mode is met “when Bensimon’s storage device 100 only has the write-protection (read-only) password”). This disclosure is insufficient to establish anticipation because claim 1 requires operating in restricted access mode when the storage device does not have the device-specific storage information, which Petitioner asserts is the read/write password and password-enabling flag. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We similarly are not persuaded that Bensimon inherently anticipates claim 1. “Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the cited disclosure identifies two possible modes of operation when the read/write password and password-enabling flag are absent from Bensimon’s storage device, neither of which necessarily must occur.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“E. Obviousness of Claims 2 and 34 based on Bensimon in combination with Takahashi Petitioner asserts dependent claims 2 and 34 would have been obvious in light of Bensimon and Takahashi. Pet. 36–40 (analysis of claim 2) and 42–43 (analysis of claim 34). Petitioner’s analysis of these claims does not repair the deficiencies described above with regard to the claimed restrictedaccess mode. See id.; see also Reply 25. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above in the context of claim 1 and based on the full trial record, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2 and 34 would have been obvious in light of Bensimon and Takahashi. See supra Section III.D.2.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,968,459
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.