• Department Of Justice v. Envisionit, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00180 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 were unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner. We generally accept a petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner represents that IBM has not funded, directed, or otherwise controlled the preparation of the Petition in this proceeding. Pet. 3. Patent Owner introduces no evidence that reasonably brings into question Petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest. Moreover, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the indemnification clause at issue, which gives IBM an “opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its defense,” gives IBM an opportunity to direct or control this proceeding.1 On this record, we are not persuaded that IBM is a real party in interest.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “1. Petitioner has not shown that Gundlegård was publicly accessible Gundlegård states on its face that it is a master’s thesis kept at Linköping University in Norrköping, Sweden, and is alleged to have been made available over the Internet. Thus, to determine a date on which Gundlegård was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the library’s cataloging and indexing practices and any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196. The Petition does not provide a detailed statement of Petitioner’s arguments as to the public accessibility of Gundlegård. Rather, Petitioner simply states “[a]s documented by the declaration of Amelia Nuss (Ex. 1021), the thesis was published at least as early as October 27, 2003.” Pet. 14. The detailed basis for Petitioner’s contention is stated in the Nuss Declaration. Patent Owner argues that this constitutes an improper incorporation by reference of arguments from the Nuss Declaration into the Petition, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Prelim. Resp. 20–21 n.4. We share Patent Owner’s concern. Nevertheless, we agree with Patent Owner that the Nuss Declaration, even if considered, does not support a finding that Gundlegård was publicly available.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Although the parties propose competing constructions of “broadcast” (Pet. 7–8; Prelim. Resp. 14–18), we need not construe this or any other term for the purposes of this Decision to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Technologies, 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 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics, or other technical field, along with three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill or contest Petitioner’s statement. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 4 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,136,954
• Sony Mobile Communications Inc. v. SSH Communications Security OyjAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2017 · IPR2015-01869 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–16, 18–20, 22–27, and 29–32 as obvious over Bellovin; claims 1, 3–8, 10–12, 14–18, 20–23, 25, and 27–29 over Shuen and RFC 1234.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in an inter partes review proceeding). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 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).” slip op. at 5

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Ex. 1040 cited by Petitioner in its Petitioner’s Reply as hearsay and as irrelevant. Mot. to Exclude 1. Petitioner relies on Ex. 1040 to support its obviousness case by stating “[i]n a co-pending action in the United Kingdom, the Patents Court found similar claims of related EP(UK) 2 254 311 invalid.” Pet. Reply 1 n.1. This issue is moot because this Final Written Decision does not cite to or rely upon Ex. 1040 or the Petitioner’s statement quoted above regarding Ex. 1040. For that reason, we do not address the matter on the merits and dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelOther

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “specification and prosecution history. Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–46. There are, however, two distinct exceptions. The first is the circumstance in which a patentee sets forth a definition by acting as his own lexicographer. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2012) (citation omitted). The second is the circumstance in which a patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution. Id.; see also PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing disavowal as an exception to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Here, Patent Owner relies on several embodiments in the Specification and the knowledge of its Declarant, but does not cite to sufficient evidence: 1) of the patentee becoming a lexicographer defining a NAT as bidirectional between two “realms,” or 2) of a clear disavowal of a NAT which translates addresses in a single direction or operates in a single “realm.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,544,079 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,544,079
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18

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

    “30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01872 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 11–14, 17, and 20–25 were not shown unpatentable because Lu did not teach providing resources to queued users of packet data.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. Means-plus-function Terms Claims 11–14 and 17 recite several terms in means-plus-function format. Claim 24 recites several terms in the form of “logic for” performing the functions of parallel terms recited in claim 11. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed constructions, set forth at pages 10–15 of the Petition, as our constructions for the means-plus-function terms of claims 11–14 and 17. Dec. 17–18. We also determined to treat the “logic for” terms of claim 24 as means-plus-function terms, see Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and adopted Petitioner’s statement of the structure corresponding to the “logic for” terms (Pet. 10–13). Id. at 18. Patent Owner does not dispute these constructions. PO Resp. 8. On the complete record, we maintain these constructions.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Read in light of the Specification, “providing said communication resource to queued packet data users on a tier-by-tier basis,” as recited in claim 1, means providing the communication resource to queued users of packet data on a tier-by-tier basis. We are persuaded by Patent Owner that this is the only reasonable reading that is consistent with the Specification. Petitioner provides no examples in the Specification consistent with its reading. Although the preamble of claim 1 recites a “method of processing queued data packets,” this is consistent with the Specification’s general statement that the invention pertains to “an improved packet data queueing algorithm,” Ex. 1001, 9:3. We do not read this general statement in the preamble of claim 1 (or the similar preamble recitations in claims 11 and 24) to provide a basis for construing more specific language in the body of the claim in a manner inconsistent with the description in the Specification. In sum, the only reasonable reading of “queued packet data users,” in the context of the dependent claims, and in light of consistent description in the Specification, is queued users of packet data, not users of queued packet data.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “such as initial class queues 416–438, organized into high, medium, and low classes, are “a plurality of individual packet data queues.” Pet. 19–20. As to claim element 1[b], “determining a total number of data packets that can use an available communication resource,” Petitioner points to Lu’s description of using a weight-based scheduling scheme to transfer packets from one level queue to another. Id. at 23–24. Petitioner identifies the transmission capacity of the output link (e.g., 209) as the “available communication resource,” and contends that such weighted transfer during a cycle includes determining a total number of data packets that can be transferred for a cycle.5 Id. at 24. Petitioner further contends that Lu’s description of using subscriber weights based on subscriber volumes for particular classes teaches “allocating different weights to each tier of service based on a number of users requiring access to the available communication resource,” as recited in claim element 1[c]. Id. at 28–30. Regarding claim element 1[d], Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause the weights of Lu vary with the 4 We refer the claim elements 1[a]–1[e] as identified in Section I.E, above. 5 Patent Owner contends that Lu does not teach claim element 1[b]. PO Resp. 12–23. Because we decide that Petitioner has not shown that Lu teaches claim element 1[e], as detailed below, we do not decide whether Petitioner has shown that Lu teaches claim element 1[b]. available capacity (which in turn would affect the ‘total number of data packets that can use an available communication resource’), the weights of Lu consistently indicate how much (i.e., ‘proportion’) of the capacity (‘total number of data packets’) each class (i.e., ‘tier of service’) will receive.” Id. at 32.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s Reply argument is not simply rebuttal to the Patent Owner Response. Rather, it is an attempt to formulate a new prima facie case of obviousness. The Office has instructed that such improper Reply argument will not be considered: A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition. [37 C.F.R.] § 42.23. While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or 6 In the Institution Decision, we considered Petitioner’s argument and evidence (including Mr. Lanning’s testimony, Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–97) and determined that Petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to show a reason to modify Lu and, accordingly, declined to institute as to claims 5 and 15. Dec. 26–27. unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The “Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because IBS relied on an entirely new rationale.”). Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s Reply argument for claim element 1[e]. For the same reasons, we do not consider the argument Petitioner made for the first time at the oral argument (Tr. 22:17–23:2). Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,768 (“A party may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In this case, the Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,385,994 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,385,994
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01707 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious over Payne, and claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Payne and Ackley.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “guidance in resolving this disagreement. To that end, the relevant portion of independent claim 11 recites “at least one server operative to store one or more of: a) content, b) links to content.” As an initial matter, controlling precedent from our reviewing court instructs us that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of . . . evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Accordingly, on a high level, each of the following express claim terms are presumed to have different meanings: “content”; and, “links to content.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner because Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced. Most prominently, were O’Neil the only factual support for Patent Owner’s position, it may be persuasive. Petitioner’s proposed modification, however, relies not only on O’Neil, but also on Payne and the Declaration of Dr. Greenspun. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 241; Ex. 1006, 6:9–42, 8:38–53, 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, and Fig. 5); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 272. In short, we are persuaded that the following findings in Payne asserted by Petitioner are accurate, and that it supports adequately Petitioner’s proposed modification. The system of Payne already includes functionality requiring a user to log on to an account, Ex. 1006 at 6:9–42, 8:38–53, so it would have been trivial to place the log in functionality directly on the digital advertising documents, which are web pages, see id. at 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, Fig. 5. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 240. When a patent simply arranges old elements, each performing the same function it had been known to perform and together yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Pet. 48; see also Reply 11–16. As counter-evidence, Patent Owner cites to paragraphs 46–48 of the Declaration of Dr. Papakonstantinou. Those paragraphs, however, suffer from the same logical flaw identified above.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Payne and Ackley are non- analogous art, we disagree. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To that end, Payne discloses that it relates to the field of “user-interactive network sales systems for implementing an open marketplace for goods or services over computer networks such as the Internet.” Ex. 1006, 1:14–17. Ackley discloses that it relates to the field “computer-based systems and methods that enable sales transactions between third parties through a communications network, such as internet auctions and classified systems.” Ex. 1008, 1:21–25. We see little daylight between these two fields, especially given that Ackley’s use of the word “such as” with “internet auctions” indicates that such “internet auctions” are a non-limiting example, and, thus, do not materially limit Ackley’s field of endeavor.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01706 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over MyLibrary.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In summary, we construe “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”5” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “written decision is issued shall be given 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).). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that most claim terms do not 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 5

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

    “7. Conclusion We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of MyLibrary. In addition to findings we make above in connection with our analysis of claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious in view MyLibrary, we also adopt as our findings Petitioner’s positions as to how MyLibrary discloses each of the limitations of claims 11, 12, and 16–20. We further adopt as our own Petitioner’s rationales for modifying MyLibrary, as referenced above.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. / Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01416 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Fujii, Fujii and Nakamura, or Fujii and Tsutsui, as applicable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “In essence, Patent Owner’s construction of the term “light shield area” as requiring an observable effect on the quantity of light leakage in order to improve the quality of the display to the user imports a term of degree into claims that recite this feature. “When a ‘word of degree’ is used [in a claim], . . . the patent [must provide] ‘some standard for measuring that degree.’” Enzo Biochem v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “The claims, when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “When a claim term ‘depend[s] solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention,’ without sufficient guidance in the specification to provide objective direction to one of skill in the art, the term is indefinite.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The phrases “observable” and “quality to the user” are highly subjective and, on their face, provide little guidance to one of skill in the art. These phrases are not recited explicitly in the claims themselves. Patent Owner has not directed us to any disclosure in the written description, nor can we find such a disclosure, relevant to determining a standard for 11 measuring the necessary degree of observability or quality.3 Consequently, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction of the term “light shield area” because it would inject unnecessary ambiguity into the claims that recite this feature. Instead, we maintain our initial determination that “light shield area” should be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning (i.e. area that shields light), which, in our view, is a broad, yet reasonable construction in light of the Specification and claims of the ’275 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner relies on Allergan for the proposition that Fujii’s criticism of blocking light means that it cannot be relied on as prior art in this case. PO Resp. 26 (citing Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. 796 F.3d 1293, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Patent Owner asserts that, “[i]n Allergan, the court found that the prior art criticized the claimed formulation [BAK] because the reference taught one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the amount of a particular claimed element in order to avoid certain problems. PO Resp. 26 (citing Allergan, 796 F.3d at 1305–06.). However, Patent Owner does not explain that, in Allergan, “the prior art taught that BAK should be minimized in ophthalmic formulations to avoid safety problems.” Allergan, 796 F.3d at 1305. In Allergan, “the prior art [also] taught that BAK would not increase the permeability of bimatoprost, but might instead decrease it.” Id. at 1306. Thus, in Allergan, the prior art taught that the formulation at issue caused safety problems and caused the opposite effect than the one desired by the patent at issue. Here, in contrast, Fujii teaches that the metal auxiliary terminals will cause the exact effect desired (or intended result) in the ’275 patent, even though that same effect, i.e. blocking light, is disfavored by the Fujii inventors. In fact, Fujii suggests that the light blockage above the maximum width would block light and “darken[] the screen.” Ex. 1003, 16:11–32. This disclosure is Fujii is supported by the testimony of Dr. Chiang. Ex. 1008 ¶ 52 (testifying that chromium wiring materials disclosed in Fujii may be used as opaque light shield areas used to darken a screen). 15 Also relevant to Patent Owner’s argument presented here is its’ assertion in its claims construction argument that light shield areas must have an observable effect or “there would be no point in providing the light shield areas.” PO Resp. 20. Were we to accept that logic, then we would also apply the same logic here that there would be no point in reducing darkening in Fujii unless the darkening described was an observable effect. “A finding that two inventions were designed to resolve different problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While Fujii suggests limiting the width of the metal auxiliary electrodes to avoid darkening of the screen and maintaining a consistent gap between the top and bottom substrates, it also teaches one of ordinary skill that widening of the metal auxiliary electrodes shields light to the screen. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 16:29–33 (disclosing that “[w]hen the width of the metal auxiliary electrode 56 is increased to further reduce the wiring resistance, the display opening factor of the liquid crystal device is reduced darkening the screen”). Finally, in our claim construction section above, we construed “light” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find that Fujii explicitly states that “the invention [of Fujii] can also be applied to an active matrix liquid crystal display,” and further states that the electrodes could be replaced by “scanning signal . . . or video signal lines.” Ex. 1003, 1:7–12, 12:54–67. As mentioned previously, Fujii states that the auxiliary electrodes may cause a darkening of the panel. Id. at 16:29–33. This is the same effect that the inventors of the ’275 patent were trying to achieve. Ex. 1001, 2:39–43. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. A person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Id. at 421. Thus, because Fujii explicitly contemplates that its teachings may be applied to an active matrix liquid crystal display, and Fujii shares a common objective with the inventors of the ’275 patent— namely, resolving uneven brightness or darkening of a panel—Fujii provides sufficient teachings such that one of ordinary skill in would implement the claimed light shield areas in an active matrix crystal display. Pet. 19; Pet. Reply 9. Patent Owner does not address separately Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence with respect to claims 2 and 4, which depend from claim 1. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed ground of obviousness by Fujii against claims 1, 2, and 4, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s 20 analysis. Based on the record developed during trial, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, and 4 would have been obvious over Fujii.” slip op. at 20

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude the ’163 patent introduced by Petitioner with its Reply as improper reply evidence and as irrelevant. Mot. to Exclude 1. Petitioner relies on the ’163 patent to support Dr. Watts’s purported admission that “in the embodiment of the ’275 patent where light shield areas are comprised of strips of light shield material (as shown in blue 27 coloration in Figure 6), the strips are on the order of 10–20 microns wide.” Pet. Reply 11 n.2. This issue is moot because this Final Written Decision does not cite to or rely upon the ’163 patent. In addition, we do not rely on any assertion by Petitioner that light shield material in the ’275 patent is on the order of 10–20 microns wide. For that reason, we do not address the matter on the merits and dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 5,850,275 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,850,275
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. / Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01417 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are unpatentable: claims 3, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Takizawa; claim 2 as obvious over Takizawa and Hoshino; and claims 2, 3, and 6 as anticipated by Hoshino.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “The Federal Circuit “counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification passages.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” Id. Additionally, “‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion’ or ‘explicit’ disclaimers in the specification are necessary to disavow claim scope.” Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Whether the order of the steps recited in a method claim must be performed in a particular order is properly a part of claim construction. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Generally, steps may be performed in any order so long as “nothing in the intrinsic evidence” compels otherwise. Id. at 1370. “Interactive Gift recites a two-part test for determining if the steps of a method claim that do not otherwise recite an order, must nonetheless be performed in the order in which they are written.” Altiris, 318 F.3d 1369 (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written.” Id. “If not, we next look to the rest of the specification to determine whether it directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.” Id. at 1370. (citation omitted). If not, the sequence in which such steps are written is not a requirement.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Takizawa does require forming an etch-stop (or channel protection layer, referred to as “the protecting film 18” in Takizawa) prior to (and as a necessary prerequisite to) forming the operative semiconductor of the TFT. Ex. 1003 at 15:1–32. However, Takizawa still performs only five patterning steps. In fact, Patent Owner admits that Takizawa performs only five etching/patterning steps. Tr. 40:23–41:9 (“there are five steps in Takizawa”); Ex. 2025 ¶ 49. Patent Owner suggests that to meet the claims limitations, step (c) must be performed before, in a separate and distinct manner from step (d). PO Resp. 47–48. Petitioner states that, although Takizawa may not perform step (c) of claim 1 before step (d), this claim do not require a specific order of steps. Pet. Reply 16. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on construing claim 1 to require performing step (c) of the claim before step (d). As we explained above in the claim construction section, we did not so limit this claim; thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. See supra Section II.A.2. Patent Owner does not address separately Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence with respect to claims 3, 5, and 6. See generally PO Resp. 47–48. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed ground of anticipation by Takizawa against claims 3, 5, and 6, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. Based on the record developed during trial, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Takizawa anticipates claims 3, 5, and 6.” slip op. at 22

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

    “Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the TFT array operates best when the ACBL receives a consistent voltage, which is provided by driving circuitry through the ACBL terminal. Thus, to create a properly operating device, [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would seek out methods of providing a reference voltage to the capacitive electrodes and would incorporate the ACBL terminal of Hoshino into the Takizawa device in order to do so. Pet. 29; Ex. 1012 ¶ 70. We agree and adopt this stated rationale because it provides specific motivation to make the combination. We credit Petitioner’s declarant who testifies that “the [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would know how to etch the ACBL contact hole and gate bus line 24 contact hole in the same photolithography step because Hoshino provides an example of doing so.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 70. Hoshino itself provides the “how” to achieve the claims limitation.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,966,589 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,966,589
• Funai Electric Co., Ltd. / Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01468 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamada because the Board found the claimed connecting structure and limitations obvious in light of Yamada.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The record supports Petitioner’s position and the claim construction determined in the Institution Decision. The ’053 patent specification broadly describes a protrusion as having any configuration: “The configuration of the protrusion 17a is any provided that it can be connected to the GND line in the connecting substrate and the width and length of the protrusion 17a can be changed on demand.” Ex. 1001, 11:42–45. According to a general dictionary cited in the Institution Decision, the plain meaning of “protrusion” is “something that protrudes,” and “protrude” means “[t]o push or thrust outward” or “[t]o jut out; project.” Ex. 3001; Inst. Dec. 6 (citing Ex. 3001). The ’053 patent specification shows protrusions that correspond to this evidence of plain meaning. For example, Figures 6A–6C show protrusions 17a projecting from an edge of wiring pattern portion 17b of a bonding assist portion. See, e.g., Fig. 6C supra. Our claim construction and the plain meaning (as evidenced by the cited dictionary definition (Ex. 3001)) also comport with the statement in the specification that the protrusion configuration “is any” provided “it can be connected to the GND line” and “the width and length of the protrusion 17a can be changed on demand.” Ex. 1001, 11:42–45 (emphases added).” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “C. Real Parties in Interest Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response that Petitioner fails to name all real parties in interest (RPIs) in its Petition as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Patent Owner does not present this argument in its Patent Owner Response and, therefore, has waived it. See Paper 15, 3 (“[P]atent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.). Assuming for the sake of argument that Patent Owner did not waive the RPI issue, we rely on, and incorporate, our findings and determination in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 20–28.” slip op. at 49

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

    “that Yamada teaches connecting the bonding assist region to ground in order to eliminate electrical noise through shielding. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 79; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 5, 7, 22, 30). Considering the teaching in Yamada of a necessary connection to ground for shielding, Petitioner cites Mr. Flasck, who declares that “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’053 [invention] would have known that some electrical protrusion would be inherently necessary to connect the bonding assist portions to a fixed potential.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 79 (emphasis added); Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 79). Petitioner also contends that “locating a protrusion” centrally or “at a different location is nothing more than a design choice,” or skilled artisans 8 Compare Wagner, 63 F.2d at 986–87 (relying on drawings), Seid, 161 F.2d at 231 (relying on accidental drawings), Mraz, 455 F.2d at 1072 (relying on drawings), and Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1566 (relying solely on design patent drawings for written description of relative proportions), with Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l., Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating “it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). As discussed above, notwithstanding the reasoning in Hockerson-Halberstadt, Yamada’s specification is not “completely silent” on the issue, as it disclose ranges for wiring widths, implying all widths need not be equal. Also, notwithstanding the dicta regarding drawings, the holding in Hockerson- Halberstadt turned on patent owner’s disavowal of claim scope based on prosecution history that overcame defendant’s argument that relied on alleged drawing dimensions that the patent owner had distinguished during prosecution. See id. at 956–57. “would be guided by design options.” Pet. 36–37 (citing 1002 ¶¶ 121–122). In other words, the thrust of Petitioner’s showing as summarized in the Institution Decision is that it would have been obvious to employ a protrusion somewhere in Yamada’s bonding assist region in order to ensure a ground connection and to prevent noise––a connection that Yamada discloses. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70, 72–73, 79; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 5, 7, 22, 30; Pet. 11, 35–37; Inst. Dec. 10 (connection to ground), 11 n.4, 14 (obviousness), 18 (obviousness); see also PO Resp. 32 (joining the issue and arguing the opposite: “Yamada does not . . . teach or suggest . . . a protrusion connected to ground” as claimed in the ’053 patent). Petitioner’s contentions are persuasive to show the obviousness of connecting Yamada’s bonding assist region using a simple protrusion or contact extension, for the purpose of ensuring the electrical connection disclosed by Yamada. The claimed “connecting structure . . . comprising: . . . a bonding assist region . . . including” a “protrusion” (an electrical contact), as claims 1 and 4 recite, constitutes “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (“We also agree that the particular placement of the contact provides no novel or unexpected result. The manner in which electrical contact is made for Smith’s battery would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.”).” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Yamada’s teachings or indicate a clear intent for the layers not to have “substantially the same height,” as called for in claim 2. See Ex. 1009, Fig. 9.11 Petitioner persuasively explains that using the same material and process to create both wiring portions, wherein a PCB nominally begins with a wiring layer as Patent Owner admits, would have been obvious as a matter of efficiency in terms of bonding and would have simplified the process by using the same existing materials. See Pet. 19–20; 1002 ¶¶ 85–86, 88; Prelim. Resp. 37 (“such wirings of a printed circuit board would presumably be comprised of copper, as would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art”); Inst. Dec. 17 (discussing showing of efficiency). Yamada uses predetermined bonding assist patterns 5 to improve bonding reliability between existing wiring layers and overcome defective bonding. See Ex. 1009, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 8–11, 24, 27, 29, 31. Yamada at least suggests forming the two wiring portions using the same material and processes at the same time: “As illustrated in Fig. 1, the wiring terminals 4 and the conductive layer 5 are formed on the PWB 1 together.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 41 (emphasis added). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments about alleged “reasons . . . to have different heights” (PO Resp. 46 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 68, 69)), Patent Owner does not address the “efficiency” reasons advanced by Petitioner for suggesting substantially the same height at the side-by-side metal regions of Yamada. See PO Resp. 45–46. 11 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner inconsistently relies on what Figure 5 portrays and ignores what Figure 9 portrays. See PO Resp. 4–5 n.1, 38. That argument overlooks that drawings must be interpreted in view of what the full disclosure portrays to artisans of ordinary skill. Also, Yamada does not disclose adding other material or different material to wiring portions 4a-h and 5. Responding to Patent Owner’s position, Petitioner relies on Mr. Flasck, who testifies that “to those of ordinary skill in the art,” Yamada teaches making the bonding assist region and terminal region of the same material and thickness. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 41; Ex. 1015 ¶ 45). As noted above, at the cited paragraph of Yamada, Yamada discloses that “the wiring terminals 4 and the conductive layer 5 are formed on the PWB 1 together.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 41. This at least suggests forming them of the same material––i.e., using the material of the printed circuit board. Mr. Flasck testifies that “to the average practitioner at the time, in this context, ‘together’ would have had the natural meaning of ‘formed of the same material at the same time.’” Ex. 1015 ¶ 46.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 6,909,053 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,909,053

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.