• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art combinations did not establish the claimed messaging through the server system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Tr. 78:6–10. Patent Owner responded “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination.” Tr. 78:13–14. We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” See Inst. Dec. 10. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. media player Patent Owner contends that, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’289 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 92–93). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player.’” Pet. Reply 1. Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software. Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 24–27)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device.” Pet. Reply 2 (alteration in original). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Muthukumarasamy “controls delivery of selected media content and selects and controls the media devices that deliver the selected media content according to a media type of the selected media content.” Because Muthukumarasamy teaches that the media device displays media content from various disparate sources depending on the media type and media source, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood the media device loads an appropriate media player depending on the media type and source. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67). Petitioner, however, proffers insufficient evidence or argument that the content choices described in paragraph 47 of Muthukumarasamy would have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to understand a media player is obtained and loaded in the content presentation device. Rather, Dr. Bederson makes conclusory statements without providing evidence to support the assertions (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–67).” slip op. at 33

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

    “Muthukumarasamy discussed above. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more messages in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file,” and “identify a location of the particular media player.” Pet. 41–45. More specifically, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate control of internet content presented at the content presentation device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward.” Pet. 65. However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the content presentation device” (Pet. Reply 22), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required messages being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward teaches “receiving, in a server system, one or more messages from a personal computing device . . . wherein the one or more messages, . . . identify a particular media player for playing content from the file wherein the media player is a computer application operable to present content and control presentation of the content,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 6. Additionally, because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of claims 2, 7, and 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,904,289 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,904,289
• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00795 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5–9 were not shown unpatentable over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward because the claimed signals identifying a media player were not shown to pass through the asserted server system.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ251 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. Media player Patent Owner contends, based on the “intrinsic record . . . an ordinary artisan would have understood the ordinary and customary meaning of ‘media player’ in the ’251 Patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 81–92, 95)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 23–26)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We determine that Hayward does not cure the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy discussed supra. In particular, Petitioner has not explained how Hayward teaches receiving the one or more signals in a system server. Rather, Petitioner relies on Hayward to teach “identify a particular media player for playing the video content” (Pet. 38–41). More specifically, Petitioner contends “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by and found it obvious from Hayward to implement the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device using any number of media players through embedded media player pages, as described in Hayward” (Pet. 15, 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 60, 102)). However, to the extent Petitioner’s assertions rely on “implement[ing] the DBCS (e.g., the RCIBS) to facilitate presentation of internet content at the display device . . .” (Pet. Reply 22 (emphasis omitted)), we determine Petitioner has not shown the combined process of Muthukumarasamy and Hayward would include the required signals being received by the server (e.g., zHub/zNode), as opposed to directly by the RCIBS as discussed above. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown, for the zHub/zNode process, that Hayward cures the deficiencies of Muthukumarasamy as set forth above.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Google LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2023 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Muthukumarasamy alone or with Hayward.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “(Tr. 78:6–10). Patent Owner responded: “I don’t think it makes any difference for this panel’s determination” (Tr. 78:13–14). We agree and determine that the differences in the level of skill offered by the Parties are not so significant as to warrant any changes to the definition set forth in the Decision to Institute. Therefore, we maintain our determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (see Inst. Dec. 10). We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “‘media player’ in the ’528 patent refers to application software and does not encompass hardware devices” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 83–91, 94)). Petitioner asserts that it “has not alleged any hardware device is a ‘media player’” and thus, “the Board need not resolve whether ‘hardware devices’ are encompassed by ‘media player’” (Pet. Reply 1). Rather, Petitioner states the media players relied upon in the Petition are all application software (Pet. Reply 1–2). Petitioner specifically states, “Petitioner has identified three ‘media players’ in the prior art. Two of these—Muthukumarasamy’s ‘Video Player[s]’ and Hayward’s ‘media players’ (Petition, 21–24)—are application software. The third ‘media player’ is likewise not a hardware device” (Pet. Reply 1–2). Thus, the parties agree that the term “media player” refers to software and not to a hardware device, and we apply this interpretation in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. Additional Terms In light of the record and our findings, reasonings, and conclusions discussed below, we determine that no other terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (see Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)))).” slip op. at 12

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

    “We are not persuaded. Even if the zHub and the zNode would be used to control the volume on the TV on which the streamed content is displayed, this device cooperation does not show the particular messaging recited in the claim. More specifically, even under Petitioner’s scenario that the “Volume Up” command flows from the IED (“personal computing device”) through the zHub/zNode (“server system”) to the TV (“content presentation device”), this command does not “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file.” Petitioner has not shown any messages in Muthukumarasamy that “identify a particular media player for playing content from the file” and flow from the IED through the zHub/zNode to the content presentation device. Thus, Petitioner’s assertions about devices working together fall short of proving by preponderant evidence that Muthukumarasamy discloses the particular messaging contents and path recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,782,528 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,782,528
• Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01489 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “(4) Claim 1 – Conclusion For these reasons, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 would have been obvious over the proposed combination of Lairson and Erdogan, and over the proposed combination of Lairson and Tsai-133.” slip op. at 23

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

    “set of layers includes oxygen.” Ex. 1001, 10:41–49. Petitioner argues that the proper construction of this limitation “means that there is a third set of layers on the opposite side of the substrate, whether or not [the layers] include oxygen” – i.e., that the third set of layers do not need to include oxygen. Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner contends that this is a typographical error and “wherein” was intended. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.2. Petitioner asserts that “each of the challenges presented in this Petition” addresses “adding a third set of layers with oxygen on a second side of a substrate.” Pet. 8. Because we find Petitioner’s contentions to be sufficient for institution even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we need not address Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We also conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any other claim terms. See id.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ794 patent, we apply a slightly modified 4 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the open-ended term “at least.”. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ794 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “However, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the combination are directed towards a bodily incorporation of structures described in the references, rather than the combination of their teachings proposed by Petitioner. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Given the teachings in each reference and our direction that an ordinarily skilled artisan is a person of ordinary creativity, we find, on this preliminary record, that Petitioner has adequately shown that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied Lairson’s teachings regarding a short-pass filter with Erdogan or Tsai-133’s teachings concerning filter layers on both sides of a substrate used to form a bandpass filter. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Petitioner’s proposed combination does not involve adding the exact layers taught in Erdogan and Tsai-133 on the second side of the substrate to Lairson’s short-pass filter on the first side of the substrate. Pet. 33–34, 36– 39. Rather, Petitioner proposes, in one example, using the same materials for filter stacks on both sides of the substrate. Id. at 37–38. Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments that adding the second-side layers disclosed in Erdogan and Tsai-133 to the first-side layers of Lairson is not responsive to Petitioner’s proposed combination. Additionally, on the present record, we credit Petitioner’s declarant’s uncontroverted testimony that Lairson does not explicitly describe a bandpass filter with a long pass filter, and thus that one of ordinary skill would have looked to Erdogan and Tsai-133 for the technique of using a long-pass filter on the other side of the substrate. Id. at 34–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 152, 158). On the present record, and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently shows that the combination of Lairson and either Erdogan and Tsai-133 teaches a near infrared band pass filter comprising a first set of layers on the first side, wherein the first set of layers includes silicon and hydrogen, and a second set of layers on the first side, wherein the second set of layers includes oxygen. Additionally, on the present record and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner sufficiently sets forth its showing with respect to the motivation to combine the teachings of Lairson with those of Erdogan or Tsai-133 as it proposes.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,131,794
• Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01184 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim would have been obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “8. Conclusion Based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner’s proffered arguments, evidence, and supporting testimony fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 17, 18, 20–23, 27, 30, and 31 would have been obvious over Pilgrim, Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda.” slip op. at 32

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution (Prelim. Resp. 49–54). Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv (Pet. 66–67). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “B. Discretionary Denial – 35 U.S.C. §325(d) Patent Owner contends we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because of the Petition’s “reliance upon the secondary references Gibbons, Lairson, and Yoda. Gibbons and Lairson were considered by the Examiner, and Yoda does not contain any meaningful additional disclosure or basis for unpatentability that was not considered by the Examiner” (Prelim. Resp. 21–22). Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged in those grounds would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ269 Patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements (see Pet. 6). More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ269 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,588,269
• Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01281 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6–11, 13–17, and 19 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), weigh in favor of denying institution. Prelim. Resp. 43–47. Petitioner argues we should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. Pet. 58–59; Paper 9. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner uses the pre-AIA statutory framework in its analysis. Pet. 1 n.1. Patent Owner does not comment on this. The ’794 patent claims priority to a provisional filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the applicable AIA amendments. Thus, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our decision would be the same were we to apply the AIA version of the statute. Because we determine Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing any of the claims challenged would have been obvious as discussed below, we do not reach this issue.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ526 patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements. More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with 3 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ794 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner asserts the term “center wavelength” (recited in claims 8, 9, and 17) should be interpreted as “the average of the two half-power wavelengths (i.e., [full width half maximum]) in a passband.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:53–56, 9:1–4, FIGS. 7D, 8C, 9B; Ex. 1037, 5; Ex. 1039 ¶ 47). Petitioner asserts the term “passband” (recited in claim 14) should be interpreted as “a wavelength range within which a signal can pass through a filter and outside of which the signal is blocked,” as per Patent Owner’s construction Id. (citing Ex. 1037, 12–15). Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s proposed interpretations or provide its own constructions for any claim term. See generally Prelim. Resp. Having considered the record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). E. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 – Obviousness over Pilgrim, Yoda, and Thelen” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,131,794
• Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01183 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 9–18, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 27–30 would have been obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the Petition and the 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 that follow, we do not institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’526 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “D. Claim Construction We construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), i.e., as construed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. An inventor may rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not directly oppose Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner does, however, state that “Petitioner’s expert has proposed a definition of a POS[IT]A that does not include specific experience in the design of optical filters” and “[m]ere general experience in optical elements does not demonstrate that a POS[IT]A would have possessed the specific abilities to design a brand-new multilayer optical interference filter from scratch, or to recreate and modify the materials from Yoda, as would have been required” in the asserted combination of Pilgrim and Yoda. Prelim. Resp. 33. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ526 patent, we apply a slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the qualification of “at least” and clarifies some statements. More specifically, we determine a POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with five years of experience in optical element design and optical filters although additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to optical element design and optical filters) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical element and optical filter design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ526 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “of lower refractive index layers, and two specific properties: 1) that at least one of the one hydrogenated silicon layers is thicker than one of the lower refractive index layers, and 2) that the plurality of hydrogenated silicon layers have at least a specified refractive index at a given wavelength. Ex. 1001, 11:8–16. Petitioner argues that Pilgrim teaches the desirability of an optical filter stack having specific properties, and that Yoda teaches an optical filter having the claimed layers. However, even if it would have been desirable to use Yoda’s Si:H filter layers and those layers would have had the recited refractive index properties, as Petitioner asserts, Petitioner fails to show that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have obtained Pilgrim’s cited filter properties for an optical filter stack when implementing Yoda’s filter layers in Pilgrim’s optical filter stack. The optical filter that Pilgrim discloses, and that Petitioner relies on to teach the claimed optical filter properties, has a passband that “is centered on 950 nm with a full bandwidth of approximately +/-25 nm” and a “shift in [passband] center between an [angle of incidence (AOI)] of 0 degrees and an AOI of 40 degrees [that] is approximately 15 nm.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 26. Yoda is silent with regard to whether its filter layers could be used in an optical filter having a limited shift at a passband center, as disclosed by Pilgrim. As Patent Owner points out, “no reference cited [in] the Petition describes a design for any optical filter with a center wavelength shift of 15 nm over the 0° to 40° AOI range.” Prelim. Resp. 3. And Yoda does not “consider how the center wavelength would shift based on AOI.” Id. at 22. Petitioner’s assertion that optical filter properties and the filter layer properties are “routinely optimized parameters” (Pet. 24) does not adequately explain that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have implemented the filter layer properties taught by Yoda in an optical filter to obtain the properties disclosed by Pilgrim. Still further, Petitioner’s assertion about routine optimization is conclusory and is not supported by evidence. Nor is Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in “optimizing parameters” to design a filter for Pilgrim’s application supported by adequate evidence. Petitioner must show not only “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention,” but also “that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. 688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Petitioner’s assertion that a POSITA would have expected to succeed in optimizing the parameters and designing a filter for Pilgrim’s application and to meet Pilgrim’s design goals in light of the guidance about how various processes and parameters impacted the index of refraction and extinction coefficient of Si:H and the POSITA’s ability to simulate the performance of the filter designs using the optimized materials (Pet. 22) does not address whether a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in creating an optical filter with the required properties using the filter layers described by Yoda. Petitioner has not shown a POSITA would have had the “ability to simulate the performance of the filter designs using the optimized materials.” Pet. 22. For example, Petitioner has not discussed what specific simulation techniques or tools would have been used by a POSITA. Furthermore, although Petitioner’s expert asserts the POSITA would have been led to select hydrogenated silicon as the high-refractive index material and would have further found it obvious to design the material to increase the refractive index to meet the design goals, while still maintaining a low extinction coefficient. These goals would have been achieved by tailoring the deposition processes and conditions, as well as the hydrogen content of the hydrogenated silicon material, as was known to the POSITA (Ex. 1002 ¶ 145), that statement does not explain how the tailoring the deposition processes and conditions and the hydrogen content would have led to successfully maintaining the low extinction coefficient, let alone to successfully creating an optical filter with Pilgrim’s required passband characteristics. Rather, as Patent Owner points out, the evidence cited in the record before us suggests “the design of [an optical] bandpass interference filter with a narrow bandwidth and low center wavelength shift is not trivial.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7C). Specifically, in detailing the requisite filter layers for an exemplary filter, the ’526 patent describes a filter stack of 48 layers of materials having varying thicknesses, an “[antireflective] coating includ[ing] 5 layers, and the total coating thickness [being] about 5.7 µm.” Ex. 1001, 8:1–12, Figs. 7B–7C.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,222,526
• Platinum Optics Technology Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00631 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–12, 14, 16–21, and 23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed hydrogenated silicon properties.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Supported by Mr. Willey’s testimony, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in physics, or in a related science or engineering field, along with at least 5 years of experience in optical coating design and the manufacturing of optical filters, including various deposition techniques.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66–68). According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education (e.g., a Master’s degree with exposure to coating design and manufacturing) may substitute for some industrial experience in optical thin film design, and more industrial experience can substitute for a different educational background. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 66). Patent Owner neither directly addresses Petitioner’s proposal nor provides its own proposal. See Tr. 35:15–18 (Patent Owner confirming for the record that it has not proposed a different level of ordinary skill than Petitioner’s proposal). Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable and consistent with the prior art presented. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We accordingly adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the statements Dr. Clemens made under oath in his Declaration, we find that he qualifies as a person having at least ordinary skill in the art according to our adopted definition. The questions Petitioner raises about Dr. Clemens’s qualifications were insufficiently explored on cross-examination to impeach that testimony. With respect to Petitioner’s further complaint that Dr. Clemens “did not review all the evidence in rendering his opinions, did not select the materials he reviewed, and did no independent research on the question of enablement,” we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner cites no authority for the propositions that expert witnesses must review all exhibits or perform independent research. Sur-reply 27. Indeed, we do not find it particularly unusual for an expert witness to focus his analysis and opinions on specific issues identified by counsel, and Dr. Clemens properly discloses the underlying facts and data upon which his opinions are based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). We thus accord due weight to Dr. Clemens’s testimony.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the claims do not need an express construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding” but nevertheless “provides its proposed interpretations of two terms [namely, ‘center wavelength’ and ‘passband’] to clarify how Petitioner is applying the prior art to the claims.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not directly address Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms, and appears generally to treat the terms in a manner consistent with Petitioner’s proposals. We conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim term. See 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 16

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

    “One difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that it treats the refractive index and extinction coefficient as independent variables in its argument. But the prior art is clear that the adjusting the hydrogen content of Si:H to achieve a desired extinction coefficient necessarily affects the refractive index—and, as we discuss above, that such adjustments do so in a direction counterproductive to the combination of parameters the inventors sought. And we agree with Patent Owner that the refractive index and extinction coefficient “are not parameters subject to simple adjustment, but properties resulting from the parameters of the fabrication process.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 121–122; Ex. 1016, Figs. 2–3). At the Oral Hearing, Petitioner conceded that Patent Owner’s characterization is accurate when considering the hydrogenated silicon material. See Tr. 65:7– 12. When Petitioner refers to the refractive index and extinction coefficient as result-effective variables, Petitioner means that those parameters are variables that can affect the properties of the claimed optical filter. See id. at 64:6–65:12. As we note above, Petitioner’s argument thus presumes that the refractive index and extinction coefficient can be independently adjusted to achieve desired filter properties—but the asserted prior art teaches against such independence because the known method of adjusting the hydrogen content of Si:H not only affects both the refractive index and extinction coefficient, but does so in a manner counterproductive to the inventors’ objective.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,354,369 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,354,369
• DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2022 · IPR2020-01276 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–3, 5–7, 13–15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 29 not unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “After institution, neither party put forth arguments related to the level of ordinary skill. We discern no reason to change the level of ordinary skill in the art applied in this Final Written Decision. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either (1) a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as well as three to four years of experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming multimedia data; or (2) a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two years of experience in implementing protocols and/or equipment for streaming multimedia data. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’796 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “independent claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. Petitioner does not take an express position on whether the preambles of the challenged claims are limiting. See Pet. 21 (stating that Geagan teaches the preamble “to the extent it is limiting”). Patent Owner supports our preliminary determination that the preambles are limiting. PO Resp. 37–41. Given this posture, we discern no reason to change our initial determination that the preambles are limiting. Thus, even though the disposition of this case does not turn on any particular limitation in the preamble, we maintain our determination that the preambles of claims 1, 15, 20, and 27 are limiting to the extent they color our analysis of Petitioner’s rationale for combining various prior art references.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that no terms require explicit construction.2 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

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

    “Petitioner attempts to decouple these central control aspects from the functionality of sliding windows. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he majority of the functionality for implementing the sliding window buffers is found in Vishlitzky’s stream servers themselves” and that Patent Owner has not established “that the controller servers of Vishlitzky exercise control over the playout history, the buffers, or sliding window functionality of Vishlitzky’s stream servers.” Pet. Reply 8–9. Yet Petitioner expressly relies on Vishlitzky’s admission control program, which runs on controller servers 28, 29, to teach the “determining” step of claim 1. Pet. 35–36, 40–41; Pet. Reply 21–22. Petitioner has not explained how the admission control program’s centralized function of choosing an appropriate stream server to service a request (see Ex. 1010, 7:62–8:3) would be implemented in the stream servers themselves. In addition, Petitioner’s analogy between Vishlitzky’s controller servers and the memory controllers used with Geagan’s proxy (Pet. 63; Pet. Reply 9) does not detail how and whether Petitioner proposes to modify Vishlitzky’s centralized controller functions such that they might be compatible with “the distributed nature of Geagan’s proxy approach,” as Petitioner characterizes it. Pet. Reply 10. At the oral hearing, Petitioner also suggested that a controller within a single proxy from Geagan could allocate incoming requests to multiple of Vishlitzky’s stream servers within that same proxy. Tr. 55:1–57:21; see also PO Sur-reply 23–24 (discussing this potential argument). In other words, Petitioner seemed to suggest that multiple stream servers from Vishlitzky’s stream server architecture in Figure 16, along with controller servers from Figure 2, could be replicated in each of Geagan’s proxies. Yet Petitioner disavows such a mapping in its Reply: “[T]he Petition does not propose that a POSITA would have bodily incorporated the entirety of Vishlitzky’s hardware control structure when implementing Geagan’s system using Vishlitzky’s ‘sliding window’ to store cached streaming content.” Pet. Reply 6. Nor was this the combination described in the Petition. Instead, Petitioner proposed “to implement the buffer of Geagan as a ‘pre-configured playout history (PH) buffer’ . . . because Vishlitzky teaches that it is advantageous to pre-configure a playout buffer.” Pet. 34; see also id. at 62–63 (“[A] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing details of the ATM-based stream server of Vishlitzky in Geagan’s proxy . . . .”). Petitioner further characterizes this as “[t]he buffer of Geagan’s proxy, as implemented as a pre-configured PH buffer per Vishlitzky.” Pet. 39. And, importantly, Petitioner cites the creation of another proxy device in Geagan for teaching the recited “non pre-configured PH buffer”: “Geagan in view of Vishlitzky discloses ‘servicing the first request from a non pre-configured PH buffer,’ such as by live-streaming content using a buffer at the proxy device that is created at the time of the request for an unpopular live stream.” Pet. 42 (emphasis added). Finally, even if Petitioner’s papers had proposed a combination where Vishlitzky’s entire stream server and controller architecture is incorporated in each of Geagan’s proxies, Petitioner has failed to articulate reasons with some rational underpinning why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made this combination. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. At the very least, Petitioner has not explained where Vishlitzky’s controller servers would be disposed in the combined system and how they” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,796 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,796
• DISH Network L.L.C. / DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01041 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  DISH failed to prove claim 13 unpatentable as obvious over either Durand and Bennett or Goyal and Bennett.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regard Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill as consistent with the prior art before us (see Okajima 261 F.3d 1355). Based on the present record, including the disclosure in the ’456 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine Petitioner’s asserted level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’456 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)). As we determine the four instances of “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation introduce ambiguity, we remove these terms from our definition. Accordingly, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan would have a Bachelor of Science in one of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or a related field, as well as three to four years of experience in implementing resource reservations for UNIX-based computing systems, or a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as two years of experience in implementing resource reservations for UNIX-based computing systems.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any terms of claim 13 (Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only 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) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review)).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “However, Petitioner has not set forth with specificity where Bennett teaches the request uses the one or more object references. Indeed, Petitioner has not explained how these two teachings of Bennett disclose the recited limitations with sufficient specificity or how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Durand with these teachings of Bennett to achieve the recited limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established that the combination of Durand and Bennet teaches the subject matter of claim 13. Therefore, based on the entire trial record, we determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Durand and Bennet under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, as noted by Patent Owner (PO Sur-reply 11), Petitioner offers a new theory, pointing to a different system call of Goyal (Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1090 ¶ 144 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 352–354))). Petitioner contends this new argument is to address Patent Owner’s alleged contention that “‘quality of service’ must already be ‘provided’ at the same time when the correspondence to the ‘reference to an object’ is created (Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1090 ¶ 141)). Thus, in Dr. Negus’ Reply Declaration, Dr. Negus asserts Goyal teaches the recited “quality of service guarantees that correspond to a reference to an object” relying on the “int hsfq_move (int from, int to, .....)” which “is used to move a thread from one leaf node to another”1 (Ex. 1090 ¶ 144). Petitioner’s alleged reliance on the hsfq_move (int from, int to, …….) system call instead of the int hsfq_mknod (char *name, int parent, int weight, int flag, scheduler_id side) system call represents a change in Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions that is presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply (see Pet. Reply 19–20). We acknowledge that the Petition mentions a “move” function: “Additionally, system calls are used to remove, move, and administer nodes in the scheduling structure. Goyal also discloses several additional functions to manage the scheduling structure, including removing, moving, and administering nodes.” (Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 350–352 (citing Ex. 1007 § 4))). But the cited portion of Dr. Negus’ Declaration simply states that there are other system calls, including “int hsfq_parse(char *name, int hint),” “int hsfq_rmnod(int id, int 1 We note Dr. Negus refers to the system call as “int hsfq_move” (see e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144, 352) although Goyal discloses the system call as “hsfq_move” (Ex. 1007 § 4). We consider Dr. Negus’ naming to refer to the same system call as disclosed in Goyal. mode),” and “int hsfq_admin(int node, int cmd, void *args)” and the system call “‘int hsfq_move(int from, int to, .....)’ which ‘is used to move a thread from one leaf node to another’” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 352; see also id. ¶ 144 (repeating the same information as paragraph 352)). Additionally, these teachings of Goyal are discussed in conjunction with the limitation “utilizing an application programming interface . . . to establish one or more quality of service guarantees” (id. ¶¶ 356, 359). Thus, Dr. Negus’ initial Declaration does not elaborate on the move function, and the Petition does not rely on the “hsfq_move” system call to teach the limitations of claim 13. Petitioner asserts that this argument in reply is to address “Patent Owner’s new claim construction position” (Pet. Reply 19). We disagree. As outlined above, the Petition does not identify where an object reference is “used in the request,” as specifically recited in claim 13. Petitioner’s new reply argument, therefore, attempts to fill in a gap in Petitioner’s unpatentability contentions from the Petition that was pointed out by Patent Owner. Under the circumstances here, we do not consider this a permissible reply argument (see Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”)). Thus, we do not consider Petitioner’s newly presented contentions.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,725,456 not shown unpatentable
  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,725,456

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.