• Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. Ips Group Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · IPR2016-00067 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted IPS’s rehearing request and held claims 1–5 and 7–10 not shown unpatentable as anticipated by King ’054 under § 102(e).

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing that the decision from which rehearing is sought should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Id.” slip op. at 3

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

    “communicated to the inventors of King ’054 by Mr. King. In that respect, we observe the following: (1) it is undisputed that Mr. King and the D+I inventors invented the substantive content that became claims 8 and 10 of the ’310 patent; (2) Mr. King is a common inventor as between each of the ’310 patent and King ’054; (3) the record reflects that there was frequent and numerous collaborative exchanges between Mr. King and the other inventors of King ’310 (i.e., the D+I inventors); and (4) those exchanges occurred prior to the filing of the application that became King ’054. See, e.g., Exs. 2018–31, 2034–42.” slip op. at 6

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “Response to IPS’s Request for Rehearing, provides little, if any, basis undermining the above-noted inference. DPT’s attempt, as a part of its Response, to belatedly seek rehearing of our Final Written Decision as to claims 1–5, 7, and 9 of the ’310 patent is both untimely and inadequately supported on the present record.4 Indeed, all the Response does is inappropriately seek rehearing of our Final Written Decision as to claims 1– 5, 7, and 9 of the ’310 patent, and does not follow our instruction of being responsive to the subject of the Request for Rehearing, i.e., the anticipation of dependent claims 8 and 10. See Paper 32, 2 (“The panel would like to hear from DPT as to the content of IPS’s Request for Rehearing. Accordingly, the panel authorizes . . . DPT to file a reply to IPS’s Request for Rehearing.”).” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,854,310
• Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00825 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 55 or 57.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Our Rules require that a petition for inter partes review identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is 3 Petitioner proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 13; see Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition. For purposes of this Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. “security module” and “target module” The terms “security module” and “target module” both are recited in each challenged claim. Petitioner identifies a dispute between itself and Patent Owner in related district court litigation as to whether those terms require only “functional (not necessarily physically distinct) modules.” Pet. 15. Specifically, Petitioner points to a statement in an infringement claim chart that appears to have been attached as an exhibit to Patent Owner’s complaint in the litigation that the accused device “has at least two modules, a security module (e.g., cryptographic functionality) and a target module (e.g., storage functionality).” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 2). Petitioner states that it “expressly disagrees with Patent Owner’s broad construction of the ‘modules’ language as covering structures that are not physically distinct.” Id. Petitioner contends that the proper construction of “module” “requires a structure that performs as a ‘security’ module and another separate (potentially connected) structure that performs as a ‘target’ (e.g., memory module, second security module, etc.).” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,003,135
• Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00824 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Kingston did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–15, 23–28, and 36–39 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–15, 23–28, and 36–39 of the ’802 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “A claim limitation using the phrase “means for” creates a rebuttable presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.2 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process, wherein we first identify the claimed function and then determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. at 1351; Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover, “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113. This analysis applies similarly under both the broadest reasonable construction and district court-type claim construction standards. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (affirming application of § 112 ¶ 6 in district court litigation); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011)” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193). slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193). slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,088,802
• Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00677 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 as obvious over Mahajan, and claim 2 as obvious over Mahajan and Dugan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the above, we modify Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill as follows: “a person with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of experience working with data acquisition systems, including motion data captured using markers and sensors.” We decline, however, to limit the level of ordinary skill to “designing wireless motion capture sensors,” as the ’928 Patent does not disclose being limited to “design” and “wireless” sensors. We note, however, that, in this case, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For example, the prior art of record, such as Mahajan, has been shown to relate to the field of data acquisition systems, and, in particular, motion capture sensors.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “basis for the proposed modification, nor identifies any benefit. PO Resp. 17–23. We disagree. The relevant portion of the Petition cites expressly to paragraphs 42 and 127 of Mahajan, and in quoting paragraph 127, Petitioner bolds the following: “‘[t]he apparatus can be used alone or in conjunction with other hardware . . . or software . . . and may be adapted for wired transmission of data, wireless transmission of data, or for storage of data on the apparatus.’” Pet. 17. The next sentence of the Petition then reads “[t]hus, Mahajan teaches that the on-board memory component for storage of data on the apparatus is an obvious design choice.” Pet. 17. This statement is supported by Dr. Nesbitt’s testimony, with which we agree, explaining that Mahajan provides the option to include on-board memory and leaves it to the designer to include it, considering that it was common to include memory in data capture systems to store the captured data. Ex. 1003 ¶ 115. We are unclear as to how this portion of the Petition can be read as asserting anything other than coupling memory for the purpose of data storage would have been, as Petitioner phrases it, an “obvious design choice” to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 17

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

    “its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term needs express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Accordingly, given our above findings that (1) Mahajan discloses a microcontroller and (2) coupling memory for the purpose of data storage was known to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, we have little trouble in concluding that it would have been obvious to modify microcontroller 50 of Mahajan by coupling memory thereto for the purpose, i.e., the predictable reason to combine of, of data storage. With no persuasive evidence of unpredictability or change in function of the microcontroller with memory combination, nothing more is required under KSR, nor under other Federal Circuit precedent. See Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) (“a finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational [sic] as to why the prior art references would have worked together’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,944,928 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,944,928
• Mastercard International Incorporated v. William GreciaRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00791 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Mastercard’s rehearing request to add Ameerally anticipation grounds for claims 1–4 and 11–21, finding the petition had not adequately asserted or explained those arguments and evidence.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “On request for rehearing, the burden of showing a decision on whether to institute trial should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). For reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied

    “Req. Reh’g, 2–3. But the Board could not have overlooked or misapprehended arguments or evidence that were not specifically identified and explained in the Petition. It is too late for Petitioner to add further explanation in a Request for Rehearing. As noted above, Petitioner failed to identify the place in the Petition where the matter allegedly misapprehended or overlooked by the Board was addressed in the Petition, as is required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). In any event, the reproduced text of Paragraph 83 of Gautier modifies “account identifier” with the parenthetical “(such as an email address”).” Ex. 1011 ¶ 83. The parenthetical is exemplary in nature and indicates only that an email address can be an account identifier, and not that in iTunes the Account Name necessarily is a user’s email address.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)

    “we did not state or find that Petitioner’s assertion was not supported by the record evidence. Instead, we determined that why the last step of claim 1 is met by Ameerally was not adequately explained by Petitioner. For instance, with respect to Petitioner’s discussion of Frakes, we stated: The Figure illustrates detailed information kept by Frakes’s iTunes® system for a digital movie file. Id. at 4. Petitioner asserts: “Frakes illustrates ‘Purchased By’ and ‘Account Name’ in the metadata of the iTunes® media file (grayed out in image for privacy, but field illustrated), such that the claimed ‘electronic identification reference’ was necessarily written into the metadata as saved by iTunes®. (Cherukuri Decl. ¶ 139).” Pet. 46. However, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Cherukuri explains why the “Purchased By” or “Account Name” field is necessarily the login information, e.g., the user’s e-mail address, that the iTunes® system had requested and received, as had been explained by Petitioner and Mr. Cherukuri above when accounting for requesting an electronic identification reference and receiving the electronic identification reference. It is not explained why the fields cannot be another identification reference other than the user’s e-mail address. Paper 7, 32. With respect to Petitioner’s discussion of Zweig, we stated: The argument [about Zweig] establishes that, in the metadata for the digital content purchased or downloaded by a user there is an identifier, an electronic identification reference, that identifies that user. However, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Cherukuri explains why that identifier in the metadata is necessarily the login information, e.g., the user’s e-mail address, that the iTunes® system had requested and received, as had been explained by Petitioner and Mr. Cherukuri above when accounting for requesting an electronic identification reference and receiving the electronic identification reference. It is not explained why the fields cannot be another identification reference. Id. at 32–33. With respect to independent claims 11 and 21, we stated that for the same reasons discussed in the context of claim 1, the same operation as is required by claims 11 and 21 is not sufficiently accounted for by Petitioner. Id. at 33.” slip op. at 3

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,533,860
• Smart Microwave Sensors GmbH v. Wavetronix LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00488 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 25 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Boles or Farmer and obvious over combinations including Boles, Farmer, Herman, and others.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “1. Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012 Patent Owner argues the date printed on each of Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012, is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 as out of court statement offered to prove that truth of the matter asserted—that each document was a printed publication as of the date printed on that document (i.e., that it was sufficiently publicly accessible). Paper 45, 2–3 (citing Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB April 23, 2015)). As discussed supra, we agree with Patent Owner that the dates printed on these Exhibits are hearsay with no applicable exception. Thus, we grant Patent Owner’s motion requesting that we exclude the copyright notice date from each of Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1012, and exclude the date of the EuMC conference on Exhibit 1002. However, we note that the documents per se are not excluded from the record as hearsay—only the date imprinted on each as proof of the printed publication status of each document. The underlying documents of these Exhibits are offered not to prove the publication dates thereof but, instead, are statements offered to demonstrate the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner may rely on other evidence to establish the date of public accessibility of each of these documents, the analysis of which we have set forth supra. See Section II.B.1–4.” slip op. at 54

  • Skill levelNot reached
  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. Ex. 1036, 98:21–99:13. In light of that testimony, we determine that Patent Owner’s expert testimony in support of their assertion is not credible.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Id. at 49:19–50:10. Given, at best, significant ambiguity as to whether the Specification and other evidence requires that “traffic data” must refer to “all or substantially all vehicles,” we are persuaded that such a requirement would not be proper under a broadest reasonable construction. Regarding Patent Owner’s assertion that “traffic data” is limited to data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,693,557 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,693,557
• Enforcement Video LLC D/B/A Watchguard Video v. Evicam International Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2017 · IPR2017-00245 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution on claims 52, 58, 60, and 61 and denial of institution on the remaining challenged claims unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “instituting an inter partes review of claims 52, 58, 60, and 61 of U.S. Patent No. 6,950,013 (“the ’013 patent”) and denying institution of claims 1, 4, 8– 12, 17, 18, 27, 28, 34, 35, and 45 of the ’013 patent. Paper 11 (“Req. Reh’g”), 1. On rehearing, the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified lies with Petitioner, the party challenging the Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously address in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “differentiation analysis constitutes error, much less an abuse of discretion. Specifically, under any standard, we disagree that merely because claim 13 sets forth “said download trigger is adapted to require input of an electronic access code,” that the information datalink is able to access the captured data without an authorization code. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that the “electronic access code” recited in claim 13 is synonymous or related to the “authorization code” recited in claim 1 (see id. at 7), an assertion that itself is dubious given the differences in express claim language, claim 13 merely sets forth a specific technique for inputting the electronic access code via the download trigger. Claim 13 does not negate claim 1’s specific requirement that the captured data is inaccessible without the authorization code — in other words, if the authorization code is not required to be input in the download trigger, it must be provided in another way to access the data. We similarly disagree with Petitioner that the limitations set forth in claim 47 dictate that the data can be transferred (accessed) without an authorization code. Claim 47 merely sets forth the transfer is “in response” to the receipt of the access code, and does not mandate an interpretation that the data can be transferred (accessed) without the authorization code.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner did not adequately explain or map how either Joao or Mackey discloses captured/stored data being inaccessible without the use of the authorization code. Dec. 10, 15. Petitioner asserts that in reaching our conclusion, we incorrectly interpreted “the captured data being inaccessible without the authorization code” to” slip op. at 2

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,950,013
• Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2017 · IPR2017-00455 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims, failing to provide a sufficient rationale for either proposed prior-art combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner, and for that reason, section 325(d) is not relevant to our analysis. Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. We consider Patent Owner’s three underlying contentions under this standard.” slip op. at 9

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

    “cooling air unobstructed by exterior body panels and would avoid receiving hot air from inside the engine compartment, thereby cooling the CVT more effectively, reducing wear, and improving CVT efficiency. Pet. 19, 22; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 48–50, 54, 55, 230, 233; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–5. The premise of this reasoning is that airflow to Suzuki’s CVT is obstructed by an exterior body panel or panels. That premise is not supported adequately the record.” slip op. at 12

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

    “For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that no claim terms need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Other

    “We reserve ruling on the Motion to Seal. Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015 will remain under seal in the interim. After the absence of a timely request for rehearing, or if filed, after resolution of a request for rehearing, Patent Owner may seek authorization to file a Motion to Expunge Paper 7 and Exhibit 2015. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(d)(1), 42.56.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,217,501
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont Hospital And Elekta, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00187 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 25–29 and 35–42 are unpatentable: claims 25–29 and 36–39 as obvious, and claims 35 and 40–42 as anticipated.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that Jaffray ’97 anticipates claims 35 and 40–42. Pet. 41–45 (citing Exs. 1003, 1004). For example, independent claim 35 recites “providing an existing radiation therapy system that comprises a radiation source that is supported on a support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a rotating gantry including an MV source. Independent claim 35 recites further “attaching an imager that does not directly 5 We refer to the original pagination of Jaffray ’97, and not Petitioner’s pagination. face said radiation source to said support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a kV imager that does not directly face the MV source. Petitioner provides similar analyses for claims 40–42. Patent Owner does not dispute any of the Petitioner’s assertions. 3. Conclusion After considering all of the above-referenced evidence and arguments anew, in light of the appropriate standard, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 35 and 40–42 are anticipated by Jaffray ’97.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: 1. determining the scope and content of the prior art, 2. ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, 3. resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and 4. considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address the challenges based on obviousness below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. Initially, we note that Patent Owner does not dispute that Span discloses the movable imager support system recited in claim 25. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that Span’s movable support system is a known improvement. Ex. 1005, 2:59– 63 (disclosing that due to the movable support structure, imaging equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24”). Instead, Patent Owner alleges that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the CBCT system of Jaffray ’97 to include the Span’s movable support system, for the known improvement of facilitating movement of a detector toward and away from a patient, because there is no need for such an improvement for a CBCT system. PO Resp. 14–20 (citing Exs. 1005, 1:12–21, 1:30–35, 2:35–36, 2:38–44, 2:48–55, 2:59–63, 3:2–4, Fig. 1a; 2080 ¶¶ 78–85, 100–103, 117). Patent Owner’s argument is misplaced, because Petitioner’s proffered modification is for the known improvement of movement generally, and not limited to the movement of a detector toward and away from a patient disclosed in Span. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: Jaffray ’97 does suggest that “important characteristics [of the imaging system] include . . . (iii) flexibility of use . . . and, (v) convenience.” (Id. at 5.) Span addresses this flexibility and convenience, explaining that, with the disclosed support structure, equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24 . . . .’’ (Ex. 1005 at 2:59–63.) Pet. 27–28. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419 (“The second error of the Court of Appeals lay in its assumption that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.”). The Petition does not rely on the movement in Span being limited to “toward and away from a patient.” See generally Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’592 Patent would be a person with a graduate degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in medical physics or a related field (e.g. Physics, Engineering) and three years of experience in radiation oncology physics, imaging science, and image processing related to radiation oncology applications beyond the completion date of their degree. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. The Declarants are in agreement that the person of ordinary skill in the art has a relatively high level of skill, and also are in agreement as to the basic qualifications for that person. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s Declarant’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason than for conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are, at best, limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,826,592 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,826,592
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00166 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 43–46, 48–55, 57, 59–66, and 68 unpatentable; strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with commercial success and copying, outweighed the obviousness case.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We begin first with the claim language, and note that “three dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1302 ¶ 14. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

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

    “the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19

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

    “the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, on pages 33–37 of the Petition which, for the reasons set forth below, we agree with and adopt. Patent Owner asserts that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the radiation therapy systems of Adler/Depp to include the CBCT/FPI system of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997, because both timing and dosage considerations teach away from the proposed combination. PO Resp. 29–36. We disagree. We begin with timing considerations. PO Resp. 29–34. Fundamentally, Patent Owner asserts that replacing the orthogonal 2-D images projections of Adler/Depp with the CBCT acquired images of Cho/Antonuk/Jaffray 1997 would represent “very poor methodology” because the CBCT system takes a significantly longer period of time to acquire and process images from a patient than the 2-D image system, e.g., 60 seconds to acquire the image, and 30–50 minutes to reconstruct the entire CT conebeam data set. PO Resp. 33–34. According to Patent Owner, such a delay is detrimental in the context of sending targeted radiation to a specific volume within the patient, because during that time, the patient from whom the images was acquired would most likely have shifted positions. PO Resp. 33–35. We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 31. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 107, 123, 126 (citing Ex. 1304, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502

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.