- Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01475 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under §103 over Tomlinson and Malkamaki; claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 are also unpatentable over Davis and Wei.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Although we agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not simply mean the broadest interpretation (PO Resp. 13), we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the broadest reasonable claim construction for “first information sequence” should be “important information.” Id. at 15. As Petitioner points out during oral arguments, the claims are not specific as to what “first information” is other than “first” is merely used to “differentiate” it from “second” information, “a very common thing when it comes to patent claim drafting.” Tr. 18. As Petitioner points out, “the Federal Circuit said the use of terms first and second is a common patent law convention to distinguish between repeated 12 instances of an element or limitation, which is exactly how Patent Owner has used it here.” Id. (citing 3M Innovative, 350 F.3d at 1371). Further, as Petitioner points out, dependent claims 5–6 and 13–14 limit the “first information sequence” from the respective independent claims to “specific types of information,” including “retransmission information” and information “used for an error control.” Pet. Reply 1–2. That is, “where the applicant intended to limit an information sequence to a specific type, it made those narrowing characteristics express.” Id. at 2 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Other claims . . . can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.”)). As Petitioner points out, here, Applicant chose not to limit (at least in the independent claims) the sequences of bits “to any particular type.” Id. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification shows that (1) “features of the present invention as a whole” limit the scope of the claims and (2) the Specification’s repeated descriptions mapping “important information” to “the first and second bits.” PO Sur-reply 5. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, we construe the term “first” information sequence as a particular information sequence, and “second” information sequence as another information sequence distinguishable from the “first.” The Specification, including the claim language and the prosecution history, do not compel any different conclusion. We also are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that adding a subjective term such as “important” into the claim construction would 13 introduce ambiguity. Tr. 20–21. Thus, we agree that we should not adopt a construction that replaces an unambiguous claim limitation with one that depends on purely subjective opinion. See Intellectual Ventures, 902 F.3d at 1381. Thus, we conclude “first information sequence” can be any information sequence that if different from a “second information sequence,” wherein “a sequence of bits” are generated including “at least one bit” of each of the first and second information sequences. Ex. 1001, 10:50–67.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As for the other claim limitations, we determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed 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) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge the Petition’s definition of the level of skill of a POSITA. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is 3 Neither party has presented arguments regarding objective evidence of nonobviousness in the instant proceeding. 16 consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Although Petitioner acknowledges that Patent Owner relies on Dr. Nettleton to dispute that Tomlinson’s 12-bit sequence of symbol words is a “sequence of bits,” Petitioner contends that “Dr. Nettleton later recanted that opinion.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1021, 18:23–19:22). In particular, Petitioner contends that Dr. Nettleton “confirmed” that Tomlinson’s signal organizer “recombines bits from the base and overlay stream into ‘a sequence of bits,’ i.e., the symbol words.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1021, 48:10– 20). That is, in Dr. Nettleton’s deposition, he confirmed that in Figure 3 of Tomlinson, “the information bits from the base stream and the overlay stream are . . . recombined back into a sequence of bits,” wherein “that sequence of bits” are the “symbol words.” Ex. 1021, 48:10–20. We agree with Petitioner that Tomlinson’s signal organizer 16 is arranged to receive the base and overlay streams and to generate “a succession of symbol words of binary form.” See Ex. 1007, 16:54–56. Based on this teaching by Tomlinson, and the deposition of Dr. Nettleton (Ex. 1021, 48:10–20), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Tomlinson’s signal organizer generates 12 bits per frame including 8 bits from the base stream and 4 bits from the second/overlay stream. Pet. 17.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,760,815 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,760,815 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01473 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Keskitalo and Lindell because Petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 includes limitations in means-plus[-]function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the [Applicant] intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”3 Pet. 7; see also Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function terms (Pet. 10–12), and we determined that Petitioner has set forth proposed structures that support these limitations. Dec. on Inst. 8–12; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (2018).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 7, and claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 depending therefrom, neither party has proposed a construction of any other term. See Pet. 6–7; PO Resp. 12–13. We determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed 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) (applying Vivid Techs. to an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13
- 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). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Andrew C. Singer, Ph.D., testifies that a POSITA at the time of the invention would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering. Pet. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“position of Patent Owner. In particular, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to modify Keskitalo such that its predetermined thresholds for transmission power are average transmission power values in accordance with the teachings of Lindell. Pet. 26. That is, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to have used Lindell’s average transmission power values as Keskitalo’s predetermined thresholds for transmission power. See Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380 (holding that Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,611,676 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,611,676 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 21, 2020 · IPR2018-01472 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under § 103 over Nakamura and Okumura, and independently over Bhagalia and Abe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to claim 1, according to Petitioner, the claim includes “limitations in means-plus function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the [Applicant] intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.”2 Pet. 8–9; see also Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function (“MPF”) terms, and we determined that Petitioner had set forth proposed structures that support these limitations. Dec. on Inst. 9–12 (citing Pet. 9–11); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). As we noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s constructions presume that the meaning of specific functions, such as “generating” a frame, for example, are generally known. Dec. on Inst. 10. Patent Owner 2 Applicant is Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. 9 has not rebutted this presumption. Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function terms in the claims (Pet. 9–11) are as follows:” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 5, 12, and 15, and claims 2, 3, 6, 13, and 16 depending respectively therefrom, for the reasons set forth below, the explicit requirements set forth in claims themselves sufficiently limit the claims without requiring further construction. Thus, we determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed 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) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding 14 that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why researching or working particularly with “cellular radio communication systems” is necessary (PO Resp. 12), and so we adopt Petitioner’s proposed general experience of working with “digital communication systems or in network engineering” (Pet. 6), which comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“original); also Pet. 24–25). Even Patent Owner concedes that Claim 12 of Nakamura discloses that “necessary signals could include ‘one or more’ of pilot signals, synchronization information, order number, and TPC information.” Sur-Reply 4 (citing 1004, 15:51–61). The Supreme Court has stated that the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416; Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). According to Petitioner, “[t]he proposed modification to Nakamura would be straightforward, not requiring undue experimentation, and would produce predictable results.” Pet. 25. That is, “it would have been natural and an application of nothing more than ordinary skill and common sense.” Id. at 25–26. Here, the question is whether combining Okumura’s teaching of using both pilot and TPC symbols in the same necessary signal with Nakumura’s necessary signals comprising control data, such as pilot symbols and TPC symbols, was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters, 485 F.3d at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s Expert, “Dr. Vojcic admitted that no technical barriers would have prevented a POSITA from modifying the expressly disclosed embodiments of Nakamura to combine pilot and TPC symbols.” Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1016, 34:14–35:20). We view Petitioner’s combination as being akin to a simple substitution of Okumura’s use of both pilot and TPC 34 symbols in Nakamura’s necessary signals. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (indicating determining obviousness is easier when the claimed subject matter involves “a simple substitution for one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.”). We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “[t]he Petition’s proposed combination of Nakamura and Okumura is guided by the ’563 patent and driven by hindsight.” PO Resp. 32. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that Nakamura and Okumura provide sufficient motivation for combining the references in the manner required by the claims. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 15:53–61; Ex. 1005, 14, 18, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–54). First, although Patent Owner contends that “there is no discussion of the benefits gained by sending both pilot and power control symbols” (PO Resp. 32 (citing Pet. 21), we agree with Petitioner that Nakamura explains that pilot symbols permit ‘coherent detection with interpolation at a receiving side’ and that power control symbols permit ‘carrying out a transmission power control’” and this provides a reason one of ordinary skill in the art would make Petitioner’s proposed combination. Ex. 1004, 11:48–50 (“In this eighth embodiment, the necessary signal generation unit 10 includes pilot signals to be used in carrying out the coherent detection with interpolation at a receiving side”), 13:11–14 (“In this eleventh embodiment, the necessary signal generation unit 10 includes a transmission power control information which is necessary in carrying out a transmission power control.”); Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1004, 11:48–50, 13:11–14)). Thus, although Patent Owner contends that Nakamura “does not” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 6,466,563 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,466,563 - NEC Corporation / Nokia Corporation et al. v. Neptune Subsea IP LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2019 · IPR2018-01157 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto; the Chowdhury and Webb grounds, with or without Tanaka162, do not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each of claims 13–20 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties submit and we agree that there is no need to construe any term to resolve the issues in this decision. See Pet. 7–9; PO Resp. 6; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“e. Summary For the reasons described above, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to combine Yamamoto’s and Nishimoto’s teachings as asserted by Petitioner and that the combination teaches all of claim 13’s limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“tunable compensators is a contingent argument, applicable only if one reads claim 13 to require a certain transmission rate. PO Resp. 21–25. We do not read Petitioner’s argument as so constrained. Rather, we understand Petitioner to argue that a desire for higher transmission speeds would drive skilled artisans to use solutions such as Nishimoto’s tunable compensators, particularly in light of Nishimoto’s guidance regarding the ability to achieve high speeds with the system. See Pet. 21–23. In that regard, we agree with Petitioner that the increase in transmission rates from Yamamoto’s to Nishimoto’s disclosures would have given skilled artisans reason to consider Nishimoto’s teachings. Pet. Reply 16–18 (citing Ex. 1005 8:9–11; Ex. 1007, 12:37–39). As Petitioner points out, Nishimoto specifically discloses that higher-speed transmissions were more sensitive to dispersion. Pet. Reply 17 n.9. Thus, we find the desire for higher transmission speeds and the need for techniques such as taught by Nishimoto would have given skilled artisans reasons to combine Nishimoto’s disclosure regarding dispersion compensation with Yamamoto’s system to achieve Yamamoto’s goals regarding the dispersion maps for multiple channels. Further, Petitioner does not rest entirely on the desire for high-speed operation. Petitioner argues also that using Nishimoto’s adjustable compensators and feedback control would “yield an improved WDM system capable of automatic compensation for degradation of the optical signal waveform caused by both wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion of the optical transmission path, resulting in further reduced size and cost.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1007, 3:41–60, 4:3–58, Figs. 17, 20, 21), 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1007, Abstract, 3:37–40, 6:56–64, 7:53–56, 11:41–46, 17:53–55, 17:59–60; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–115); accord id. at 14 (quoting Ex. 1007, 3:19–25). Patent Owner recognizes that basis for the combination but argues that the record lacks evidence to support Petitioner’s claim of reduced size and cost. PO Resp. 25–26. Patent Owner does not contest that the modification would give Yamamoto’s system the ability to automatically compensate for signal degradation from dispersion. Nishimoto discloses that as transmission speeds increase, “changes in wavelength dispersion characteristics due to temperature changes of optical fiber; and the influence by polarization mode dispersion” both “can not be neglected,” therefore requiring a system for automatically compensating for wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion,” as taught by Nishimoto. Ex. 1007, 1:34–41. We find that a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the combination because the system would gain capability for automatic compensation. Regarding reduced size and cost resulting from the combination, Patent Owner does not provide any contrary evidence and we conclude that Nishimoto’s statements regarding the benefit of its invention also would have motivated skilled artisans to make the combination. See Ex. 1007, 3:17–26 (“to thereby provide a dispersion compensating apparatus of reduced sizes at a reduced cost”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,351,798 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,351,798 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Red Rock Analytics, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 28, 2018 · IPR2017-01490 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show that the Board misapprehended “calibration cycle” or abused its discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). III.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“calibration cycle.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 11:66–67 (emphasis added). We found that how the calibration cycle is referred to in this limitation (i.e., signal includes it) underscores that the calibration cycle is a feature of the calibration RF signal itself. Dec. 15–16. Rather than addressing this claim 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,916 B1 (issued Sept. 6, 2005) (Ex. 1003, “Warner”). 2 We do not address further Warner’s teachings because Petitioner’s arguments are predicated on our having misapprehended the meaning of “calibration cycle,” which we did not. In an inter partes review, the petitioner has the burden to show why the patent it challenges is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(citation omitted).” slip op. at 4
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“signal includes a calibration cycle.” Ex. 1001, 11:56–12:5 (claim 1), 12:22– 54 (claim 7), 13:18–49 (claim 16), 13:63–14:30 (claim 22), 14:65–15:32 (claim 32), 15:46–62 (claim 38), 16:12–44 (claim 44), 17:8–37 (claim 53), 17:52–18:19 (claim 59), 18:52–19:18 (claim 69) (emphasis added). In denying the Petition, we found that Petitioner did not establish that the prior art disclosed or rendered obvious this limitation. Dec. 8–19. More specifically, we found that the calibration cycle relates to a feature of the calibration radio frequency (“RF”) signal (i.e., the signal includes), rather than simply requiring having a calibration process occur, as Petitioner submitted. Id. at 15–19. Our reasoning underlying this finding related to (A) the language of the limitation, (B) the language of dependent claims, and (C) the ’313 Patent’s Specification. Id.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,346,313 - Ubisoft, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 22, 2018 · IPR2017-01828 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 19 were anticipated by Inside Macintosh.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“2. Discussion To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Discussion To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” slip op. at 9
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“2. Discussion To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” slip op. at 9
§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,489,974 - Ubisoft Entertainment S.A. / Square Enix v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2018 · IPR2017-01827 · APJ Jessica C Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 12, and 17 were anticipated by TME Cookbook.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“2. Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenge To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Analysis of Petitioner’s Challenge To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached
“E. Asserted Ground Petitioner relies on The TME Deployment Cookbook (“TME Cookbook”) dated April 1997 as anticipating claims 1, 12, and 17 of the ʼ293 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Petitioner further relies on testimony from Mark C. Lang, an attorney with Erise IP, P.A., as establishing that TME Cookbook qualifies as a printed publication. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1004). Patent Owner does not challenge the printed publication status of TME Cookbook at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this decision, we assume without deciding that Petitioner has sufficiently shown TME Cookbook qualifies as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,069,293 - Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,106,099 - Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01123 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner failed to explain adequately why or how a skilled artisan would combine the references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “continuous noise detection algorithm” and “power distribution filter algorithm.” Pet. 24–28. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms. Prelim. Resp. 8–11. After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the ’726 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for the disputed claim terms in order to reach our decision.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Williams’ testimony. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys (“Dr. Forys”), however, proffers his own assessment regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’726 patent. According to Dr. Forys, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 29. Dr. Forys does not address Dr. Williams’ testimony in this regard or otherwise indicate whether his analysis would change if Dr. Williams’ proffered level of ordinary were adopted. Id. We have reviewed the ’726 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’726 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Williams and Dr. Forys (who mostly agree as to the level of skill of an ordinarily skill artisan). Based on our review, we adopt and apply Dr. Williams’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision. In addition, our analysis would not change if Dr. Forys’ proffered level of ordinary skill were adopted.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“time of the ’726 patent would likely understand the relationship between power and energy. We also agree that there is a relationship between power and energy, and that it is possible to derive information about one from the other. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25:8; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Based on the evidence of record, we do not agree, however, that power and energy “are essentially equivalent and can be used interchangeably” as asserted in the Petition. See id.; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 174–177). Nor do we agree one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Gupta energy threshold is the same as the power level threshold disclosed in Li. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding Gupta’s disclosure that “[a] minimum energy threshold may be programmed to [the cadence tone’s] required power level for a valid signal on a line” is equally unpersuasive. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:41–44). We are unpersuaded because neither Petitioner nor Dr. Williams explains sufficiently how Gupta’s minimum energy threshold relates to a required power level or how it relates to Li’s power estimator and the purpose of Li’s power estimators. Given the lack of equivalence between power and energy, we find Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have switched from detecting a power threshold, such as that described in Li and required by the challenged claims, to detecting an energy threshold as disclosed in McNitt and Gupta. Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)).” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)). We agree with Petitioner that the cited references do not need to be physically combinable to render claim 1 obvious. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Obviousness, however, “may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Additionally, it is impermissible for Petitioner to “use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, Petitioner must set forth clearly in the Petition which references it is relying on for each specific limitation and how those combined teachings would render the challenged claims obvious. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,630,726 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,630,726 - Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 11, 2017 · IPR2017-01177 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–20: claims 1–6 and 8–15 on obviousness over Otto, and claims 7 and 16–20 on obviousness over Otto, Gainsboro, and San Martin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–20 of the ’250 Patent are unpatentable. The Board has not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of these claims. The Board’s final determination will be based on the record as developed fully during trial.” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“As quoted by Patent Owner, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) addresses whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” To evaluate this criterion, we examine what arguments and art were presented to and considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Although Otto was considered by the Examiner (Ex. 1004, 243 indicates Otto was included in an Information Disclosure Statement by the Applicant), the Examiner did not rely on Otto in any rejection of the issued claims in view of Otto. We are further persuaded that the Examiner has not been shown to have considered Otto in the instant context, i.e., with claims 10 being argued as being obvious over Otto and with declaration testimony opining that the claims would have been obvious over Otto (Ex. 1002). Patent Owner also faults Petitioner for not distinguishing Otto from San Martin (Prelim. Resp. 7), but it is not necessarily incumbent on a petitioner to distinguish the disclosures of newly applied and previously applied prior art references. Patent Owner points out similarities in the disclosures of Otto and San Martin (id. at 6–7), but does not demonstrate what similar portions of Otto and San Martin would have been considered in finding certain claims allowable. See Ex. 1004, 219. Such a consideration is important because Patent Owner incorporated the allowable subject matter into the independent claims to gain allowance. See Ex. 1004, 290. At this stage of the proceedings, we are persuaded that that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of the independent claims are taught or suggested by Otto, and as discussed below, we are not persuaded that the disclosures of Otto and San Martin are necessarily cumulative.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“With respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that such a person “would have held at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar field, and had at least two years of experience (or the academic equivalent) working with speaker-dependent voice recognition in the context of telecommunications.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–41). Patent Owner does not offer an alternate characterization at this time. As such, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Hence, we determine that “match” would have been understood as determining whether two data items are identical or finding a data item that is identical to a key. See Ex. 3001. Furthermore, we determine that “substantially” would have been understood as to a great or significant extent, or for the most part or essentially. See Ex. 3002. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, consistent with and in 7 the context of the specification, of “substantially matches” is “determining whether two data items are for the most part or essentially identical.” See also Verve v. Crane Cams, 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Expressions such as “substantially” are used in patent documents when warranted by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention.”)); see, e.g., Ecolab Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “like the term ‘about,’ the term ‘substantially’ is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter”) (citation omitted). Although Petitioner does not proffer an explicit construction for the claim term “substantially matches,” Petitioner does argue that the prior art discloses “both exact matches and matches that deviate from exact matches by predetermined amounts.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Therefore, we are persuaded that Petitioner is implicitly applying a claim construction of “substantially matches” that comports with the broadest reasonable construction determined herein.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,521,250
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.