- Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01154 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–27 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that either asserted Jungck-based obviousness combination rendered the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c. Summary of Claim 1 In sum, Petitioner does not explain how the edge cache devices contribute or detract from Jungck’s ability to teach or suggest the “entire boundary” and “all traffic” limitations of the challenged claims. The evidence of device 900 and claims of collateral estoppel do not remedy this deficiency. In the absence of such evidence, Petitioner has failed to “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge.” See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). For the reasons above, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Jungck and Wood meets the limitation of “[a] method of filtering packets at a packet security gateway, of a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network protected by the packet security gateway . . . comprising: a first set of packet filtering rules to be applied to all network traffic traversing the boundary.”” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition’s avoidance of the operation of edge caches when edge caches are important in the processing of traffic flowing across the boundary undermines this ground of the Petition. If Petitioner wished to rely on an embodiment or configuration in which the edge caches were irrelevant, the edge caches were redundant to the edge server, or the edge caches were unnecessary, it was incumbent upon Petitioner to explain sufficiently how and why that was the case. Petitioner was aware of the edge caches because it appears to have omitted all references to them in the Petition yet did not explain why this was done. Additionally, although Petitioner’s declarant does include references to edge caches, its declarant also does not explain sufficiently the relevance of those edge caches. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 148, 212, 214, 215, 227, 323. Additionally, Petitioner’s references to collateral estoppel do not relieve Petitioner from the burden to describe its contentions regarding obviousness in the Petition.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Our reviewing court has held that “[c]ollateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent.” Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); Webpower, Inc. v. WAG ACQUISITION, LLC, Case IPR2016- 01239, Paper 21 at 26–28 (PTAB Dec. 26, 2017). “Issue preclusion [i.e., collateral estoppel] is appropriate only if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377 (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S. Ct. 1501, 28 L.Ed. 2d 788 (1971) (finding collateral estoppel applies to a patentee who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of a patent in a prior federal case.)). Patent Owner points out that the claims at issue in IPR2018-01443, 1444, 1513 (“prior IPRs”) did not include the “entire boundary” or “all traffic” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26–27, 32, 44. We agree. Collateral estoppel does not apply because there are differences between the claim limitation at issue here and the adjudicated claim limitations at issue in the prior IPRs. See In re Freeman, 30 F.3d at 1465; accord MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1377–1378; cf. In re Arunachalam, 709 F. App’x 699, 702 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (finding collateral estoppel applies to an adjudicated claim that is not “materially different” than the adjudicated claims).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner requests that the preamble of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 be treated as limiting. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. These preambles provide antecedent basis for “packet security gateway,” “boundary,” “network,” and “one or more other networks.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:2, 22:13–18, 23:35–42). The preambles also recite the “plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a [protected] network,” which is “essential to understand” the “all traffic” limitation in the body of these claims and thus ‘“give life, meaning, and vitality”’ to the claims. Id. (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). The preambles provide the context for the body of the independent claims by defining the arrangement of the “plurality of packet security gateways” relative to the “boundary” of the protected network and thus the basis for applying “packet filtering rules . . . to all network traffic traversing the boundary.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 20:64–21:8). The “entire interface” limitation also was relied on during prosecution of the parent ’437 Patent’s claims to distinguish them from the prior art. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 2008, 254–61; Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808–09). Petitioner does not dispute the preambles are limiting. Pet. 18–21, 37. For, the reasons above, we construe the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as limiting. After review of the current record, we conclude that, other than determining the preambles are limiting, no express claim construction is necessary to determine whether to institute review of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,785,266 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01113 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 14–16 and 20–25 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and no material Office error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Here, Petitioner has the burden to show that the Examiner erred in determining that Chu ’330 incorporated by reference the ’886 provisional. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 17
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01079 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 are unpatentable over Becker and Kenoyer ’423; claim 6 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“The principal difficulty with Patent Owner’s arguments is that they improperly conflate transferring desktop information with the claim’s 4 The ’288 patent instead uses the uncommon acronym “PAUNTSC,” presumably a result of incorrectly printing “L/” as “U.” recitation of “capturing” desktop information. Indeed, Dr. Bhattacharjee concedes that “the desktop information as described in the ’288 patent is transferred in digital form,” even as he maintains his opinion that desktop information is not limited to digital capture by the ’288 patent. Ex. 1020 ¶ 11. There is thus no dispute among the expert witnesses, nor the parties, that the ’288 patent describes the digital transfer of desktop information. As Dr. Bhattacharjee explains, this is a consequence of the fact that “the [’288] patent describes and claims transferring desktop information only after it is encoded.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 12. Because such encoding occurs only after the desktop information is captured, “the captured desktop information could either be digital or analog.” Id. The aspects of the intrinsic record that Patent Owner identifies as supporting its proposed construction are, in fact, consistent with this distinction between capture and transfer. For example, the “advantage of the invention” identified by Patent Owner is specifically described by the ’288 patent as raising clarity on the video communication terminal when “[d]esktop information of a PC is transferred directly in a digital coded bit stream mode without converting digital signal to analog signal.” See Ex. 1001, 2:35–39 (emphasis added). This is, moreover, consistent with the portion of the prosecution history Patent Owner identifies and which also makes clear that “the desktop information of a PC is transferred in a digital coded bit stream.” Ex. 1002, 159 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Bhattacharjee “agree[s] the desktop information as described in the ’288 patent is transferred in digital form,” even though it is not captured in digital form. Ex. 1020 ¶ 11. And although the ’288 patent’s remarks about the “second” prior-art” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“technical dictionary definitions. Id. When deciding to institute this proceeding based on the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which was also not adopted by the district court in the related litigation. Dec. 12. The parties have not revisited this preliminary determination during the trial and we see no compelling reason to reach a different determination based on the full record. We according construe “bit stream” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as a stream of bits.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Both proposals appear reasonable on the record before us. Although we invited the parties “to address whether material differences exist between their respective proposals and what impact, if any, the different proposed levels have on the obviousness analysis,” neither party has done so. See Dec. 11 n.3. We apply the proposal articulated by Patent Owner, but we would reach the same conclusions under either proposal.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“skill in the art] would be motivated to combine even when bandwidth is shared”: (1) “the shared nature of the bandwidth only highlights that reduced bandwidth usage for desktop information provides the capability of a higher quality signal for the live stream without any extra costs in components or processing”; (2) because Kenoyer ’423 “does not disclose using a dedicated or fixed amount of bandwidth . . . , any reduction in bandwidth would reduce overall usage”; and (3) “even in a dedicated environment, Kenoyer ’423’s reduced bandwidth needs for desktop information would reduce the amount of dedicated bandwidth that is required, potentially saving costs or power.” Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 31–32). These reasons are directly responsive to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Response and are therefore properly considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). We also find such reasons, which are supported by additional testimony by Dr. Bhattacharjee, adequately explain how Patent Owner’s distinction is accommodated within Petitioner’s expressed rationale of “minimizing bandwidth usage.” See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Patent Owner contends that, if “Kenoyer ’423 were interpreted as teaching reducing bandwidth, it does so in a different manner than in Becker.” PO Resp. 37. Specifically, “Becker addresses bandwidth reduction by using signal compression techniques,” Patent Owner says, while “Kenoyer ’423 prevents the increase in bandwidth . . . by dynamically sharing bandwidth when both a live view of the presenter and the presenter’s computer screen are being shared.” Id. Dr. Bhattacharjee disputes this distinction by observing that Kenoyer ’423’s technique still “reduces the number of bits required to convey the same video information,” and is thereby broadly encompassed as a form of “signal compression.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 33. Dr. Rosing does not specifically disagree with Dr. Bhattacharjee’s characterization. See generally Ex. 2022 ¶ 99. Regardless, both Becker and Kenoyer ’423 support Petitioner’s rationale of “minimizing bandwidth usage.” Patent Owner inadequately explains how a distinction in the precise manner that might be accomplished by the two references diminishes the support provided by the rational underpinnings identified by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 37 (Patent Owner making the conclusory statement that “[a]s such, Petitioner fails to provide a valid motivation for combining Becker and Kenoyer ’423”).” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,609,288 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,609,288 - Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-01161 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Philipp and QT60161.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Givargis Declaration (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner does not address at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each claim limitation recited in claim 1 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated, on this record, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Philipp and QT60161. 4. Claims 2–20 Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’251 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (indicating that a decision whether to institute an inter partes review “requires a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every” slip op. at 18
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Parallel Petitions Challenging the Same Patent. Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). CTPG, 59. Nonetheless, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide recognizes that “more than one petition may be necessary, including for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. The present circumstance is consistent with the exception referenced in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide because there is a potential dispute about the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, which may require arguments to be made under multiple prior art references. See Paper 3, 2–3. Moreover, Patent Owner has not requested that we exercise our discretion to only consider, at most, one petition. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny this Petition under § 314(a). E.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“implement these functions with a touch screen and to trigger the claimed time duration from detecting a ‘key touch on a/the touch screen’ pursuant to the touch screen teachings of QT60161.” Pet. 36.9 More specifically, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply the timed features of Philipp “to a ‘touch screen’ and to trigger the claimed time duration from detecting a ‘key touch on a/the touch screen.’” Id. at 29. According to Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have made such a combination because (1) “the primary timer-based functions described and claimed in the ’251 Patent are not only compatible with the touch screen described in QT60161, but are expressly discussed in QT60161” (id. at 30; see also id. at 3031 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:61– 7:2; Ex. 1017, 7)), 9 The Petition emphasizes the names of prior art references. The emphasis is omitted throughout this Decision. (2) QT60161 and Philipp “are compatible with the same sensor technology” (id. at 31; see also id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1017, 5, Figs. 1-1, 1-2; Ex. 1024 ¶ 48, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 52; Ex. 1028, Figs. 1b, 7)), (3) both the ’251 patent and QT60161 are directed to saving power after the passage of time (id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:55–65, 10:41–13:59; Ex. 1017, 11; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97– 103)), and (4) implementing Philipp “with QT60161’s touch screen would have yielded predictable results” (id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97–103)). After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and information, including the Givargis Declaration (Ex. 1003), which Patent Owner does not address at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each claim limitation recited in claim 1 and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated, on this record, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Philipp and QT60161.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“In evaluating the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, we first address the parties’ respective burdens. In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability, which never shifts to patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware also establishes that Petitioner has the initial burden of production to show a reference is prior art. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. However, the burden of production then shifts to Patent Owner to refute Petitioner’s argument by either showing the prior art does not actually render the claims unpatentable or does not qualify as prior art. Id. at 1380. The burden of production then shifts back to Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Id. The Board then evaluates all of the evidence and determines whether Petitioner has satisfied its burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability. Id. We apply the same framework when considering whether the parties have met their respective burdens at this stage of the proceeding. (2) Application of Dynamic Drinkware Based on the current status of the proceedings, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production under Dynamic Drinkware. Specifically, Petitioner identifies two claim terms— “touch screen” and “key touch on a/the touch screen”—that are recited in each of the independent claims and were added to the ’274 application. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002, 38–41); see also id. at 11–17. Additionally, as discussed below, Petitioner has also sufficiently shown that the combination of Philipp and QT60161 teaches each of the limitations of the claims of the ’251 patent. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.2d at 1379 (finding Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production by arguing that the prior art rendered the claims unpatentable). Because Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production, the burden of production now shifts to Patent Owner to argue or produce evidence that either (1) the prior art does not render the claims unpatentable or (2) that Philipp is not prior art because the asserted claims of the ’251 patent are entitled to the benefit of a filing date (constructive or otherwise) prior to Philipp. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. Because Patent Owner—as is its right—chose not to file a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, for purposes of institution only, Patent Owner did not meet its burden of production to show that the ’251 patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than Philipp.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,251 - Stmicroelectronics, Inc. v. Neodron Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 15, 2021 · IPR2021-01160 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “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) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting on All Challenged Patent Claims and All Grounds and Eliminating the Presumption at Institution Favoring Petitioner as to Testimonial Evidence, 85 Fed. Reg. 79,120, 79,129 (Dec. 9, 2020) (codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2021)).” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Parallel Petitions Challenging the Same Patent. Based on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b). CTPG, 59. Nonetheless, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide recognizes that “more than one petition may be necessary, including for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. Because there is a dispute about the effective filing date of the ’251 patent, which may require arguments to be made under multiple prior art references, the present circumstance is consistent with the exception referenced in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide. See Paper 3, 2–3. Moreover, Patent Owner has not requested that we exercise our discretion to only consider, at most, one petition. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny this Petition under § 314(a). E.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have been a person having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of human-machine interfaces such as touch sensors and the firmware or system software that govern said interfaces, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not address this issue. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner proffers, except that we delete the qualifiers “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of education and practical experience. The qualifiers expand the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.7 C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for two terms. See Pet. 11–16. Because no express construction is needed to resolve any dispute in this proceeding, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D.” slip op. at 10
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,251 - PTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2021-01128 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–19 on all petitioned grounds, after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes the same articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art that the Administrative Law Judge adopted in the related ITC proceeding, which is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch sensors, human-machine interaction and interfaces, and/or graphical user interfaces, and related firmware and software, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 6; Ex. 1008, 8. Dr. Bederson agrees with it. See Pet. 6, Bederson Decl. ¶ 30. This articulation of the level of ordinary skill is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’173 patent and the prior art of record. Therefore, we adopt the proposed articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Although a number of ’173 patent claim terms have been construed in the related ITC proceeding, Petitioner contends that we do not need to explicitly construe any claim terms. Pet. 6–7. In particular, the constructions for the selected terms in the related ITC proceeding are as follows, according to Petitioner. Term Construction a sensing element that com-a physical electrical sensing element prises a sensing path that com-made of conductive substances that prises a length comprises a path for sensing that is determined for each use that com-prises a length object either an inanimate object, such as a wiper, pointer, or stylus, or alterna-tively, a human finger or other ap-pendage any of whose presence ad-jacent the element will create a lo-calized capacitive coupling from a region of the element back to a cir-cuit reference via any circuitous path, whether galvanically or nongalvanically displacement distance and direction of movement Pet. 6−7. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions (id.), which we find reasonable at this juncture. Therefore, we preliminarily adopt these constructions for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At our discretion, we may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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) (2018). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all asserted grounds and all challenged claims of the ’173 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record, including any timely response by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Further, to the extent the range of parameter values is not expressly or inherently taught by Trent, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to set a parameter to an initial value within a range that is associated with the length of the sensing path. Id. Relying on testimony of Dr. Bederson, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the volume control knob of Trent’s Figure 36 (reproduced above in our overview of Trent) with functionality that sets the volume to an initial value as disclosed in Trent’s paragraph 92. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 4−11; Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 91–93). Petitioner also argues that Trent identifies, as part of the prior art “solutions” to the problem of the invention, a two-dimensional sensor in which users can slide their fingers to generate scrolling actions. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 11). According to Dr. Bederson, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a sensor would set a parameter to an initial value as recited in the claims. See Bederson Decl. ¶ 93. We find Petitioner’s arguments, and Dr. Bederson’s supporting testimony on the above points, sufficiently persuasive at this preliminary stage to show by a reasonable likelihood that Trent discloses or teaches the Setting Parameter Limitation.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,432,173 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and examiner error was not shown.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its petition. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Advanced Bionics, we exercised our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and determined not to institute inter partes review. Dec. 7−26 (citing Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gmbh, IPR2019- 01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential)). As to Part 1 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that the same or substantially the same arguments were presented previously to the Office. Id. at 10−13. Under Part 2 of the Advanced Bionics framework, we determined that Petitioner failed to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’654 patent. Id. at 14−26.” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s arguments are new arguments raised for the first time in its Rehearing Request. Petitioner acknowledges that “NRG and Hollmer were not cited in the Petition.” Req. Reh’g 10. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that it “could not have anticipated the Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Droplets decision, nor the Board’s reliance on this mischaracterization,” and that Petitioner was not authorized to file a reply to the Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Id.; see also id. at 2−3, fn.1. Petitioner’s new arguments in connection with Hollmer and NRG are improper. As we discussed above, Patent Owner did not mischaracterize and we did not misapprehend Droplets. It was not necessary to authorize Petitioner to file a reply, as we were capable of determining whether Patent Owner mischaracterizes Droplets. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to recognize that the language relied upon by Patent Owner in Droplets is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 and MPEP § 608.01(p). Although Petitioner relies on MPEP § 608.01(p) in its Petition, Petitioner now in its Rehearing Request for the first time suggests that we should ignore MPEP § 608.01(p) and the case law cited in MPEP § 608.01(p). Pet. 11–12; Req. Reh’g 6−7. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to submit new arguments, after the decision has noted the deficiencies in the petitioner’s original analysis. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). It is Petitioner’s burden to identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision to Institute. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked the new arguments that were not presented in the record until after the Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, section 1.57 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is not a “statute,” but a regulation that became effective on September 21, 2004. See 69 Fed. Reg. 56,482. The ’882 application, which incorporated Chu ’886 by reference, was filed on September 8, 1998, and issued as Chu ’330 on February 5, 2002. Ex. 1005, codes (21), (22), (45), (60), 6:1–7. The ’654 patent, which incorporated the ’882 application by reference, is a reissue of Application No. 09/312,199 (“the ’199 application”) filed on May 14, 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,634,777 (“the ’777 patent”), issued on November 4, 2003. Ex. 1001, codes (63), (64); 5:63–67. Both the ’882 application (issued as Chu ’330) and the ’199 application (reissued as the ’654 patent) were filed and issued as patents prior to the effective date, September 21, 2004, of 37 C.F.R. § 1.57. Petitioner does not explain why the applicant should have complied with 37 C.F.R. § 1.57, which did not exist at the time of filing of those applications or issuance of those patents that incorporated by reference Chu ’886 and the ’882 application. Pet. 7–8, 10−17; Req. Reh’g 1−12. We decline to apply 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 retroactively to the incorporation by reference statements submitted in the ’882 application and the ’199 application.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2020-00862 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable under §103 over the Golan-based combinations; the Board found the combinations taught the limitations and secondary considerations lacked nexus.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Here, as explained below in Section III.E.2., under either articulation of the level of skill in the art Petitioner has shown the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether knowledge of photography is required for the level of skill in this case. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where a determination of level of skill would not change the result “we find no harm under the circumstances of this case in the Board’s failure to set forth express findings as to the level of skill.”). For the reasons above, we determine, on the full record before us, that the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’332 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt that level for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and that it] analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not request construction of any claim term. See generally PO Resp. 12 12 Patent Owner proposed a construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner asserted “no-switching criterion” should be construed as “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Id. at 7. In the Institution Decision, we did not limit “no-switching criterion” to “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Patent Owner did not address claim construction in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. Our Scheduling Order states that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 8. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion” is waived and we do not explicitly We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any limitation and we need not expressly construe any limitation to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- BurdenUnpatentable
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments, the supporting testimony provided by Dr. Durand, the cited portions of Golan, Martin, and Togo and the other cited evidence and we are persuaded that the proposed combination teaches the limitations recited in independent claim 1 as set forth above. Petitioner’s rationales for combining Golan and Martin and Golan, Martin, and Togo are set forth earlier in this Section, and is determined to be supported by sufficient rational underpinning for at least the reasons set forth above. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding secondary considerations of non-obviousness are set forth above and, as discussed, do not weigh in favor of non-obviousness because Patent Owner has not established a nexus between the claimed invention and the cited evidence. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner establishes unpatentability of independent claim 1 over Golan and Martin by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates the unpatentability of claim 1 over the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments, which are premised on a “physical” or “bodily” incorporation of limitations of one reference into the other. This is not the standard. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Rather than express obviousness as the physical incorporation of a structure from one reference into the structure of another reference, the prior art should be viewed as a combination of teachings from different sources, and the use of those teachings by one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418(the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art). Petitioner contends “Togo’s image-quality-based no-switching criterion teachings apply to the combination regardless of whether a distance between cameras is close or whether optical axes are parallel.” Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶ 52). Petitioner seeks only “to incorporate Togo’s teachings of a no-switching criterion based on a specific ‘setting magnification X’ and ‘photography distance Y’ of an object to be imaged.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 15; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 37, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioners showing For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Golan, Martin, and Togo is supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We are further persuaded that the cited evidence sufficiently supports Dr. Durand’s testimony.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 10,356,332 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,356,332 - Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2020-00861 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the Golan, Martin, and Togo combinations, with Levey, Border, or Parulski added for certain dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“Here, as explained below in Section III.E.2., under either articulation of the level of skill in the art Petitioner has shown the claims would have been obvious. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether knowledge of photography is required for the level of skill in this case. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where a determination of level of skill would not change the result, “we find no harm under the circumstances of this case in the Board’s failure to set forth express findings as to the level of skill.”). For the reasons above, we determine, on the full record before us, that the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’898 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt that level for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and that it] analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not request construction of any claim term. See generally PO Resp.12 12 Patent Owner proposed a construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims, in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 7–9. Patent Owner asserted “no-switching criterion” should be construed as “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Id. at 7. In the Institution Decision, we did not limit “no-switching criterion” to “one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Patent Owner did not address claim construction in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp. Our Scheduling Order states that “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 8. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the limitation “no-switching criterion” is waived, and we do not We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any limitation and we need not expressly construe any limitation to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“from parallax, which Martin depends on. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 84; Ex. 1001, 7:50–53). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We are not persuaded that the invention claimed in the ’898 patent or Golan teaches away from Martin because they do not discourage or lead one in a direction divergent from Martin’s teachings relevant to “evaluat[ing] if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled . . .” as recited in claim 1. In addition to providing an autostereoscopic display of 3D images using parallax images, Martin also discloses aligning these same parallax images using transformation parameters. See Ex. 1006, 5:38–42. Thus, Martin’s teaching of critical alignment does not appear to be divergent from or incompatible with the scope of independent claim 1 or the objectives of the ’898 patent. Nor is Martin incompatible with Golan for having a different objective. Petitioner need not show that Martin shares a common objective with Golan or the patent at issue. Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367. Thus, Patent Owner’s teaching away argument does not undermine Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“from parallax, which Martin depends on. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 84; Ex. 1001, 7:50–53). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We are not persuaded that the invention claimed in the ’898 patent or Golan teaches away from Martin because they do not discourage or lead one in a direction divergent from Martin’s teachings relevant to “evaluat[ing] if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled . . .” as recited in claim 1. In addition to providing an autostereoscopic display of 3D images using parallax images, Martin also discloses aligning these same parallax images using transformation parameters. See Ex. 1006, 5:38–42. Thus, Martin’s teaching of critical alignment does not appear to be divergent from or incompatible with the scope of independent claim 1 or the objectives of the ’898 patent. Nor is Martin incompatible with Golan for having a different objective. Petitioner need not show that Martin shares a common objective with Golan or the patent at issue. Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367. Thus, Patent Owner’s teaching away argument does not undermine Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,230,898 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,230,898 - Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 7, 2021 · IPR2021-01004 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–30 because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any preliminary response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim of the ’196 patent. The Petition is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combination, as required by KSR. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, it is not the case that “the identification technique disclosed in Hancock necessarily includes a determination of whether the device type is fixed or mobile.” Pet. 15. Rather, each separate embodiment of a portable computing device used in the Hancock system has an automatic location identification (ALI) device that is specifically designed for that device. Ex. 1005, 23:51–24:4 (describing “ALI Example I” and “ALI Example II” for cellular devices, and an additional example for land-line telephone devices). There is no suggestion of providing, for any of Hancock’s devices or server, the capability to determine whether the device is fixed or mobile, and Hancock suggests no reason to have that capability. Each device has its own ALI that is specifically designed for that device. Because we find insufficient factual support for Petitioner’s basic premise, that “the identification technique disclosed in Hancock necessarily includes a determination of whether the device type is fixed or mobile,” the rationale for the combination fails scrutiny. Even though Karp discloses a step in which a server determines whether a communicating device is a cell device, there is no persuasive reason in the present record why one of ordinary skill would have considered that pertinent to Hancock.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner states, “[n]o claims need be expressly construed.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not propose any constructions of the claims for purposes here. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,196
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.