- PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01085 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–10, 17, 19, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 58–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, and 83 on all asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Davis indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr. Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level reflected by the ’580 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 2. Similarly, Patent Owner indicates that no formal constructions are necessary at this point in the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 3. We agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly for this Decision. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds to determine whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s alleged motivation for modifying Ramos’ Zlider to be transparent is superficial and conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 24; see generally Prelim. Resp. 24–26. As noted above, Petitioner relies on evidence from Ording itself and Dr. Cockburn’s testimony that relies on evidence to support its conclusion. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation is insufficient for institution. Patent Owner also argues, relying on Dr. Davis’ declaration testimony, that the Vernier on a semitransparent Zlider widget would be “completely illegible” in some circumstances “rendering the very core of Ramos’ work unusable.” Prelim. Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 88); see Ex. 2001 ¶ 88 (not adding reasoning or evidence beyond that in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response). On this preliminary record, it would appear that when the Zlider widget and the portion of the image underlying the Zlider widget are the same color, the semitransparent Zlider widget may not work as well as when the Zlider widget and the underlying image are different colors. That does not outweigh, for purposes of determining whether to institute trial, the prior art evidence that Petitioner offers of the from Ording and other prior art references on which Dr. Cockburn’s declaration testimony relies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 77, 94, 101; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 153, 162); see Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799– 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option). Petitioner also contends, relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Cockburn, that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 33–34. Petitioner contends that implementing the Zlider widget “described in the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video in a device, as taught by Ording, would have required only routine knowledge well within the skill of a POSITA” and would involve “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results” described by Petitioner’s proposed combination of the references. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner’s support for reasons one of ordinary skill would have made” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,649,580 - PTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01090 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 21, 29–31, 42–44, 54, and 62–65 based on the §103 combination of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent Owner may bear a burden of production, however, to show that the Challenged Claims are entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date. Id. at 1379–80.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On this record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the claim limitations amount to a combination of known elements that a POSITA could have combined to achieve predictable results. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 799–800 (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option). Among other reasons, the preliminary record supports Petitioner’s arguments that combining the teachings of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin amounts to applying known solutions in the field of computer interfaces with predictable outcomes. See Pet. 12–18. As noted above, we encourage the parties to address the scope and meaning of the “when” limitations as a matter of claim interpretation, but we do not currently understand the plain language of Limitation [1.o] to require that the “portion of the second web page” or “menu” is displayed only after expiration of the “second user-configurable predefined duration,” termed by Patent Owner the “Alternative Modification.” Again, we encourage the parties to fully address this issue as a matter of claim construction. We additionally note that, even if we were to interpret the claims to require that the recited functions of Limitation [1.o] occur only the “prerequisite elements” are satisfied, we are still preliminarily persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that combined teachings of the prior art satisfy the claim elements as a mere combination of known elements combined according to their known functions with predictable results.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“scenarios. Pet. 1 (characterizing three claimed scenarios as (i) an “inadvertent” contact, (ii) a “tap” contact, and (iii) a “hold” contact), 4 (“Independent Claims 1 and 42 outline three scenarios regarding a user’s contact with a touch screen device”); Prelim. Resp. 3 (“With respect to claim 1, these three scenarios include: . . . .”); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28 (“As recited in claim 1, the three different claimed functionalities are executed ‘when’ the prerequisite elements are met (described as three scenarios by Dr. Cockburn.”) (citing Ex. 1001, 102:50–103:55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–35), 29–32 (describing the first, second, and third scenarios). In substance, the parties’ dispute appears to concern whether the plain language of the claims requires that a recited function must be performed only after or in response to expiration of a threshold (and other prerequisites), as opposed to requiring a function that begins before and continues after expiration of a threshold. Notably, dependent claim 3 recites: “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is configured such that the first feedback that is perceptible by touch is output prior to the display of the menu.” Ex. 1001, 104:1–4 (emphasis added). Given that independent claim 1 is necessarily broad enough to include claim 3, it seems on this record that the functions recited in Limitation [1.o] necessarily can happen at different times, as opposed to, for example, only responses that are triggered by the so-called “prerequisite elements.” We encourage the parties to address this issue as a matter of claim interpretation in future briefing. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,725,581 - PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on its § 103 challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’758 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 7 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–53). For the purposes of institution, Patent Owner did not dispute this level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.”) The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” appears to be consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree at this time. Additionally, we do not herein adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Pet. 7.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner also notes that in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner contends that eight claim terms found in the challenged claims are indefinite: “performing an operation [in connection with / on] the first application icon,” “application-launch criteria,” “action-option-display criteria,” “operation criteria,” “movement criteria,” “action options,” “action option objects,” and “evaluating the first single-finger touch input against at least one of a plurality of criteria, including evaluating a duration of the first single-finger touch input against at least one of: one or more application-launch criteria, one or more action-option-display criteria, or one or more operation criteria, and further including evaluating a movement of the first single-finger touch input against one or more movement criteria.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003, 9–75). Patent Owner further notes that, contrary to its position in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner does not assert that any of these terms are indefinite in this proceeding. Id. For institution and on our present record, we determine that none of these claim terms require construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 3. Other Terms For institution and on our present record, no other claim terms require construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We determine that, on this record and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing regarding motivation for its proposed combination of Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. For the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn, we determine, on the present record and for the purposes of institution, that Petitioner has sufficiently shown support for the use of Martyn’s snap-shot menu with Chaudhri’s user interface. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s declarant’s examples of instances in which devices that incorporated “popular user interface features . . . did not achieve the same level of success because of poorly articulated design implementation.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 127 (cited at PO Resp. 23). However, on the present record, this evidence does not specifically address whether one of ordinary skill would have found such examples significant enough or relevant enough to the proposed combination to dissuade one of ordinary skill from considering such a combination to be reasonably likely to succeed, especially in light of the testimonial evidence before us that similar menus were often incorporated into GUIs similar to Chaudhri’s, which is adequately supported by reference to numerous examples. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–48, 64–65 (cited at Pet. 16). Additionally, we find compelling that Chaudhri describes a pop-up dialogue sub-menu for a different purpose (modifying the user interface object). See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 274, 317, Figure 5LLL; Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. On the present record, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of the similar snap-shot menu from Martyn (offering different functionality) to be further prompted by this sub-menu, and not to have been redundant or “already solved” in Chaudhri, as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 26–27). See Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. introduced to the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn to address a conflict that arises because Petitioner proposes a combination of Chaudhri and Martyn that “create[s] a conflict of assigning two functions to the same gesture.” PO Resp. 20. However, Petitioner provides a number of rationales to combine, and Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill would have sought details from Griffin to implement Chaudhri’s teachings describing different user functionality being launched by user touches of different user durations (Pet. 19–21) adequately supports the use of the material from Griffin in the proposed combination. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 217, 218; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75; see also PO Resp. 24 (describing “multiple types of gestures” used Chaudhri). While the proposed combination of Chaudhri and Martyn would, as Petitioner asserts, result in “three distinct operations invoked by duration-based touch gestures at an application icon” (Pet. 21), two of these distinct operations are found in Chaudhri’s teachings, and thus, on the present record, the motivation to look to Griffin does not arise only from the proposed combination of Chaudhri with Martyn. On the present record and for the purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has adequately shown that one of ordinary skill would have looked to Griffin to supply additional information regarding implementation of Chaudhri’s (and the Chaudhri and Martyn combination’s) use of parameters of a user’s touch, including duration, to enable different functionalities. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 53, Fig. 7; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75. With respect to the use of the “press-and-hold” feature from Martyn, rather than other possibilities from Martyn for triggering its snap-shot menu and rather than adding a second touch point as Patent Owner suggests (PO Resp. 27–28, 32, 33 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 142–143, 156, 166, 172–173)), on to have been a suitable option. Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63–64; Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” (as per KSR, 550 U.S. at 417) requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,758 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15–35, and 37–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We determine Petitioner’s showing discussed above regarding Limitations [1.i–1.l] to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner’s showing in large measure relies on Hackborn’s straightforward description of changing the appearance of grass displayed in “live” wallpaper in response to a finger swipe in combination with Westerman’s disclosures of interpreting user input on touch screens as swipes. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 33; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18–19. With regard to the contested Limitations [1.i and 1.k], we note particularly that Petitioner’s combination relies on Westerman’s disclosure of interpreting user inputs that exceed various thresholds as “a swipe event.” This showing is sufficient for institution to show the threshold determination required by Limitation [1.j]. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19; Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 19). Petitioner’s combination relies on Hackborn’s animation of the grass on the wallpaper “that makes the grass blades look as if the finger is actually contacting them as it drags across the screen of the device.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 33; see Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 33). On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s position that “the farther the swipe, the more extreme the grass movement expected from Hackborn” naturally follows from Hackborn’s description. Pet. 23. As such, we determine Petitioner’s showing that the proposed combination of Hackborn and Westerman changes the grass appearance based at least in part of the magnitude of the swipe to be sufficient for institution for Limitation [1.k].” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 9 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Hackborn’s mobile device with a touch screen able to display “live” wallpaper and Westerman’s techniques for interpreting swipe gesture inputs, including distinguishing between tap and swipe gestures using predetermined thresholds. Pet. 9–11, 12–13; see Pet. 9–14 (describing Petitioner’s “Hackborn-Westerman Combination”). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA reviewing Hackborn would have naturally looked to Westerman to better understand how to implement Hackborn’s teachings, for example, how to discern between different user inputs (e.g., tap or swipe).” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner Petitioner proposes. Pet. 13–14. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that, because “recognizing predetermined touch inputs was known, and Hackborn and Westerman both describe the use of touchscreen devices and would have reasonably understood the combination of Hackborn and Westerman to be successful with no unexpected results.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 28, Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18, 19, 25, 41, 59, 61–64).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,656,755 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01091 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 27, 30, 32, 34, 59, 62, and 64 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion Regarding Asserted Obviousness over Kim In sum, for the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s showing regarding claim 1 is sufficient for institution. Accordingly, having reviewed the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Kim renders obvious claim 1. As such, Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes 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.”); see SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Notwithstanding, we address other claims and other grounds below, particularly in response to Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 10 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Surati indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr.Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“standards for finding lexicography in a specification are exacting. Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). As Patent Owner correctly notes, the specification states: In various embodiments, the contact pressure level may be represented by a touch state. In the context of the present description, a touch state refers to a predefined subset of the range of measurable contact pressures. For example, in one embodiment, contact pressure levels may be represented as one of four predefined touch states: no touch, light touch, medium touch, and heavy touch. Ex. 1001, 19:35–41; Prelim. Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:35–41). Patent Owner, however, has not identified any words of manifest exclusion or restriction in that passage that indicate an intent to redefine the claim term. Rather than indicating the claims are to be restricted, the specification indicates how that the term “touch state” is to be understood in the descriptions presented in the specification. Ex. 1001, 19:36–37.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have been obvious over Kim and Bowens to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner generally relies on Kim’s description as discussed above. Pet. 62–68. Specifically, in its combination, Petitioner relies on Kim’s hold event and scaling operation for Limitations [1.g and 1.h]. Pet. 64–67. Petitioner additionally relies on Bowen as providing details on recognizing and acting on specific gestures on a user interface. See, e.g., Pet. 55. Petitioner provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have combined the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See, e.g., Pet. 53–62. Petitioner also provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,936,114 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01169 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable over Thomas; claim 3 is not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 22–36 are unpatentable, and substitute claim 21 is not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“with the computer program 110.” Ex. 1005, 3:54–55. Thomas describes that (1) the “collected data is then stored in the database 130,” (2) the collected “data is stored in a data structure, generally referred to as a user’s profile,” and (3) the collected “data is logically linked to an event, or situation, that initiated the user’s input.” Id. at 3:56–61. Thomas describes creating or establishing a user profile by simulator 120 recording “the user’s decision/input” and storing “the user’s input in the field or sub-profile associated with the particular situation and/or event.” Id. at 4:67–5:5, Fig. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing for element [1.3]. Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we must consider what Thomas discloses rather than whether Thomas uses the exact claim term “instruction sets.” Cf. Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334 (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsis verbis test to disclose a claimed element). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Thomas does not “mention instruction sets” or “anything related to an instruction set.” PO Resp. 36–37; PO Sur-reply 17.” slip op. at 42
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“C. Indefiniteness Petitioner argues that proposed substitute claims 22–36 are indefinite.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS 10,607,134 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,607,134 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01173 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10, 11, 25, 27, and 30 are unpatentable under § 103 over Grotmol, Grotmol and Hickman, or Grotmol and Hoffman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim is construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 9. We determine that no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Sections II.D–II.F.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. Grotmol teaches that a user may train a robot to learn “simple” and “complex” tasks. Ex. 1005, 24:17– 23. The evidence of record indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to use different trainers “to train behaviors involving different levels of complexity in order to take advantage of the varying skills and knowledge of trainers.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 341. Thus, based on Grotmol’s teaching that a robot can learn both simple and complex tasks, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a specific reason for different users to train Grotmol’s robot for different behaviors, namely, to benefit from the users’ varying skills and knowledge. Pet. 25; Ex. 1003 ¶ 341; Ex. 1005, 24:17–23. Grotmol also teaches that a user may train a robot “using a gamepad (or other input device . . . ).” Ex. 1005, 26:9–13; see id. at 33:18–21. The evidence of record indicates that “switching users would be as simple as handing off a gamepad or other remote device used for controlling the robot from one user to another.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 73. Neither Patent Owner nor its declarant, Dr. Eli Saber, explains specifically why handing Grotmol’s gamepad to a different user would have created “complexities of combining the mixed knowledge into a single knowledgebase” or required “identifying each user to store particular learned operations and preferences in portions of the knowledgebase for user-specific autonomous operations.” See PO Resp. 14–15; PO Sur-reply 9; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 128–130. Thus, based on Grotmol’s teaching of using a gamepad to train a robot, it would have been simple and straightforward for different users to train Grotmol’s robot for different behaviors. Ex. 1005, 26:9–13, 33:18–21; Ex. 1010 ¶ 73.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“4. Reason to Combine Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the cited teachings of Grotmol and Hickman. Pet. 27–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–166). We agree with Petitioner’s rationale. Specifically, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Grotmol and Hickman so that Grotmol’s robots share training sets using Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase. Id. at 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 166. Doing so would have been obvious because Grotmol teaches sharing training sets between robots, and Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase would facilitate wider and faster sharing of Grotmol’s training sets. Pet. 27–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 160–161, 164; Ex. 1005, 33:27–32; Ex. 1007, 1:38–41, 5:41–46, 11:31–41. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase with Grotmol’s robot because Hickman’s shared robot knowledgebase would “not interfere” with Grotmol’s robot. Pet. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 166.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,055,583 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,055,583 - Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless v. General Access Solutions, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01147 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish that the claimed second transceiver routes information based on monitored signal characteristics.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported invention would have had either: (1) a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and at least 2 years of work or research experience in digital communications systems, such as wireless communications systems and networks, or equivalent, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or similar field. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa. Ex. 1002, ¶¶1-46. Pet. 10. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Ex. 2007 ¶19 (Patent Owner’s declarant, after acknowledging Petitioner’s definition, stating: “Patent Owner has not offered a different understanding of a POSITA, and the PTAB accepted Petitioner’s submission. I accept and use Petitioner’s and the PTAB’s definition of a POSITA.”). 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 › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“During oral argument, both parties confirmed their respective positions that the claim term “route” needs no construction. See, e.g., Tr. 11:7–9 (Petitioner’s counsel: “Frankly, it doesn’t make any difference to the analysis of the prior art. And so, we don’t believe that the PTAB needs to construe the term route, and so we have not proposed a construction.”); id. at 58:25–59:2 (Patent Owner’s counsel: “You know, I don’t think that you have to define routing in order to decide the case. I think you can do it, you know, just apply whatever plain and ordinary meaning is.”); cf. Tr. 40:14–18 (Patent Owner’s counsel at oral argument: “For the routing itself, you know, there is a District Court construction and that’s a construction that the other—the Petitioner did not ask for determination whether that’s appropriate or not appropriate here. We did not address that as well, so the parties aren’t arguing that that construction should be applied here.”). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art discloses or teaches, under Petitioner’s articulated theories, that a second transceiver routes information based on monitored characteristics. This is dispositive of the inter partes review. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of deciding the dispositive issues.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1004, 5:25–36 (emphasis added). Thus, Palmer discloses that the determination to roam to another cell may be done by the mobile worker’s wireless communication device 20 having a specifically-programmed processor or may be done centrally, with examples being the “network” or central host processor. We disagree that this constitutes a disclosure of the access point 40 performing the roaming determinations. Rather, we find to be persuasive and credible Dr. Chrissan’s testimony that “a POSITA recognizes that an access point does not qualify as ‘centrally, for example, by the network or a central host processor,’” and, “[i]nstead, this phrase refers to one of the centrally located devices such as network 14 or central host processor 12 (in Fig. 1), or a device in administration building 33 (in Fig. 2).” Ex. 2007 ¶ 71 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 2). Dr. Chrissan’s opinion is consistent with Palmer’s disclosure, as we will now discuss.” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence its foundational assertion that Palmer discloses that “access point 40 determines whether roaming by a portable terminal 20 should take place and routes data packets accordingly.” Pet. 26–27; see Technology Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Failure to prove the matter as required by the applicable standard means that the party with the burden of persuasion loses on that point—thus, if the fact trier of the issue is left uncertain, the party with the burden loses.”). As such, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Palmer discloses, as recited in independent claim 1, a second transceiver that, “based on the first signal characteristics and the second characteristics, routes information to the first mobile station and the second mobile station, respectively,” or, as recited in independent claim 6, “based on the first signal characteristics and the second characteristics, routing, using the second transceiver, information to the first mobile station and the second mobile station, respectively.” Ex. 1001, 10:38–44, 11:19–22. The Petition does not contain a contention that this “route” aspect of the claims would have been obvious. Compare Pet. 25–26 (offering an alternative argument for the monitoring aspect; contending that, “to the extent the Board disagrees that Palmer’s access point 40 performs the monitoring, it would have nonetheless been obvious to a POSA to select the access point 40 to perform the monitoring since it directly communicates with the portable terminals 20.”), with id. at 26–27 (making the anticipationtype contention that “[t]he access point 40 routes information” without an alternative obviousness contention); see also Pet. Reply 12–13 (arguing, under the monitoring-and-routing heading, that monitoring by the access point would have been obvious, but not arguing the same for routing). Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1 and 6 and dependent claims 2–4 are anticipated by or would have been obvious over Palmer.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 9,426,794 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,426,794 - PTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00981 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Kleve-based obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to determine whether to institute review. Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Therefore, pursuant to § 314, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 in the ’188 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Examiner’s notation indicates that Zaid was considered. We do not agree, however, with Patent Owner’s position regarding Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve. The challenges over Kleve alone or in combination with Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude counsel us not to discretionarily deny institution. Patent Owner does not dispute that Kleve, Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude were not before the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 15–24; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Although Patent Owner characterizes the Petition’s challenges based on Kleve as an “attempt to end-run Section 325(d) by including additional grounds that lack merit” (Prelim. Resp. 23–24), we disagree. Rather, explained in detail below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve and it is the reason for institution. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s challenges based on Zaid are not relevant. As such, we determine any analysis under Advanced Bionics is inapplicable, and we do not exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution. b. Advanced Bionics Prong Two: whether “the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims” Because the Board is persuaded to instituted based on challenges not involving Zaid, , we will not consider the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the language in Petitioner’s stipulation does not eliminate completely any overlap with district court invalidity arguments. Petitioner’s stipulation allows Petitioner to use any prior art reference that is not relied on in the Petition. This may not fully address “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 12. Nonetheless, Petitioner’s stipulation does decrease the overlap in issues and mitigates to a great degree the concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that the fact that the Petition challenges claims that are not asserted in the litigation weighs marginally in its favor. Based on the foregoing discussion, we determine that factor four weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenInstituted
“teaches, or at least suggests, that the user’s “request includes a condition of use of the vehicle as set by the user via the user account” because we are persuaded that the distribution of Kleve’s virtual e-key includes a rental period restriction. Specifically, we are persuaded by the Petition’s reliance on Kleve’s express disclosure that “terms and conditions for the rental period” are agreed to before the virtual key is generated. See Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). We preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Kleve describes an e-key that is only operable during a rental period because Kleve discloses “[t]he virtual key may also be sent to the vehicle configuring the VCS to enable the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 39; see Pet. 16. We note Patent Owner’s citations to Kleve’s Figures 2 and 5 that indicate control restrictions are added after the distribution of a virtual key. At this stage of the proceeding, however, based on the disclosure of Kleve we are persuaded the rental period would be included as a restriction when the virtual key is created at step 206 of Figure 2 prior to the distribution of the virtual key at 210. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–39. At this stage, we credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, who opines that Kleve discloses that certain restrictions are sent with the request to generate a virtual key. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–123. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Kleve discloses that the virtual key “enable[s] the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” restrictions were sent with the request so that the virtual key could be associated with said restrictions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“Once the rental period has expired the virtual key may be reset and cleared from the VCS.”)). Dr. Almeroth further testifies that the virtual key in Kleve is always generated after the rental agreement. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“[O]nce the Temporary User selects the vehicle, pays the appropriate amount and signs a consent agreement, then the system may generate a virtual key to distribute to the Temporary User and VCS.”)). Thus, after review of the arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has provided adequate explanation and supporting evidence that Kleve teaches or suggests the challenged claim limitation.” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,365,188
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.