- Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “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. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00269 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 18 based on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Provisur proposes, and Weber does not dispute, that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’823 patent, at the time relevant for the analysis herein, would have possessed the following background and qualifications: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 13–14. Provisur’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the problems and solutions addressed in the ’823 patent and the prior art of 3 US 2016/0023370 A1, pub. Jan. 28, 2016 (Ex. 1004, “Müller”). 4 US 2019/0329438 A1, pub. Oct. 31, 2019 (Ex. 1005, “GEA438”). 5 US 2009/0159631 A1, pub. June 25, 2009 (Ex. 1006, “DePoi”). record. Therefore, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Provisur’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Weber’s Preliminary Response does not manifest any claim construction dispute that would bear upon this Decision. Therefore, we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this preliminary stage. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“[I]n evaluating the factors,” set forth in Fintiv, “the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv 6 (emphasis added). In view of the following discussion of these factors, under the circumstances as they appear from the present record, the efficiency and integrity concerns, referenced in Fintiv, are best served by not exercising our discretion to deny the Petition without considering the merits. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 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, and solely for the purposes of this Decision, we determine that Grounds 1 and 2 of the Petition (as identified below) satisfy this standard.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,331,823 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00258 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16–20, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 2, 17, and 19 are obvious over Müller and Waffner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Aside from operability, Weber does not further dispute Provisur’s showing as to how the asserted combination of Müller and Waffner renders obvious the subject matter of independent claims 2, 17, and 19. See Prelim. Resp. 14–24. After analyzing Provisur’s showing, including Provisur’s mapping of the claim elements to Müller and/or Waffner and its reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine their respective teachings (as discussed above), we find that Provisur demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least independent claims 2, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Müller and Waffner. See Pet. 28–38 (claim 2), 38–42 (reason to combine), 47–52 (claim 17), 53 (claim 19). Thus, Provisur meets the threshold for institution. At this stage, Weber offers no response to Provisur’s challenge of dependent claims 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20, except presumably to rely on its argument against Provisur’s challenge of their respective base claims 2, 17, and 19. See Prelim. Resp. 14–24. Because Provisur provides an obviousness challenge that satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” threshold with respect to at least the independent claims, we do not address the dependent claims in the absence of any rebuttal from Weber. Further analysis is best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“C. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Weber requests that we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution due to the advanced state of the parallel Missouri action. See Prelim. Resp. 3–13. Although Provisur argues that discretionary denial is not warranted (Pet. 73–77), it nonetheless submits a Sotera style stipulation (Ex. 1029) in an effort to resolve the issue.8 In light of Provisur’s Sotera stipulation, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a). See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022), at 3, 7.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“the art reasonably would have understood the advantage of incorporating Waffner’s air-permeable contact surface and vacuum chamber into Müller’s downstream buffer 12, as opposed to its upstream buffer 8, given that both prior art references emphasize the importance of controlling the infeed speed and tension of the interleaver material adjacent the cutting region where rapid acceleration and braking of the interleaver material may result in tearing and wrinkling. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26, 48; Ex. 1006, 2:58–3:4, 6:50–56; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 200–210 (addressing the teachings of Müller and Waffner in view of the existing knowledge in the art). Indeed, Provisur’s expert confirms that “[l]ike many interleaver devices known in the art, Müller discloses creating a buffer loop of web material upstream of the rollers that insert the web material into the cutting area,” and that “[i]t was known in the food slicing and interleaving industry that the tension of interleaver material fed to the cutting region from a loose loop must be controlled.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 199, 220. And, like Waffner, Müller describes buffer 12 in terms of being a “loop” buffer for controlling the infeed speed of the interleaver material into the cutting region. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 48 (“Provided downstream of the first buffer 8 is a further buffer 12, a loop here, which . . . preferably buffers only as much interleaver material as is needed for the ejection of an interleaver.”). In contrast, Müller’s buffer 8 is used only “in the event of a[n] emergency stop” for buffering “overrun of the reel.” Id. ¶ 33. Thus, based on the current record, we reject the notion that Provisur’s proposed modification of Müller’s buffer 12, which continuously controls the length of the loop near the cutting region, would have any effect on Müller’s buffer 8, which merely stops unraveling near the reel. Aside from operability, Weber does not further dispute Provisur’s showing as to how the asserted combination of Müller and Waffner renders obvious the subject matter of independent claims 2, 17, and 19. See Prelim. Resp. 14–24. After analyzing Provisur’s showing, including Provisur’s mapping of the claim elements to Müller and/or Waffner and its reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine their respective teachings (as discussed above), we find that Provisur demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least independent claims 2, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined teachings of Müller and Waffner. See Pet. 28–38 (claim 2), 38–42 (reason to combine), 47–52 (claim 17), 53 (claim 19). Thus, Provisur meets the threshold for institution.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Provisur asserts that the claim terms should be construed “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by [one of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 18. Weber appears to agree, stating in the parallel Missouri action that “most of [Weber’s] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 1028, 5. There being no dispute, we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding, because we can decide the threshold question of institution without further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,647,013 - PTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00235 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8, 10, and 14–16 based on a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Young and obvious over Young and Norrie.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Provisur proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art typically would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 12. Weber does not contest Provisur’s framing of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Because Provisur’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill described in the ’321 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt it here for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Provisur asserts that the claim terms should be construed “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by [one of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability 4 US 5,514,032, issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1004, “Young”). 5 US 4,979,269, issued Dec. 25, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Norrie”). 6 US 6,929,540 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (Ex. 1006, “Johnson”). 7 US 6,198,834 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1007, “Belk”). controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 13. Weber appears to agree, its counsel stating in the parallel Missouri action that “most of [Weber’s] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 1028, 5. There being no dispute, we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this stage, because we can decide the threshold question of institution without further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Weber requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel Missouri action. See Prelim. Resp. 6– 17. Provisur disputes that discretionary denial is warranted (Pet. 73–77), but nonetheless submits a Sotera stipulation (Ex. 1029) in an effort to resolve the issue.8 In light of Provisur’s Sotera stipulation, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a). See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022), at 3, 7.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Weber’s position, at least on the current record. Instead, we find that Provisur presents sufficient evidence that Young anticipates all elements of independent claims 1 and 14, including the disputed limitation requiring “automatic determination of the thickness of the fat cover.” In particular, Young’s imaging system 190 includes multiple cameras, including top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, and fat line camera 198, as well as controller 172 and real-time image processor 194. Ex. 1004, 17:34–59, 18:46–56, Figs. 2, 13. As described by Young, top plan camera 196 is primarily used to obtain “physical dimensions and characteristics” of the meat product, end view camera 197 is primarily used to determine the “height” of meat product and “to create a clear delineation along the top edge of the end” of the meat product, whereas fat line camera 198 is primarily used to determine the fat/lean separation line of the meat product. See id. at 17:59–18:39. Those disclosures by Young clearly contemplate determining specific dimensions of the meat product, and not simply identifying the fat/lean separation line, as Weber suggests. See Prelim. Resp. 19. To determine the “thickness” of the fat cover, Young’s imaging system has image processing routine 240, which “generates a fat/lean separation line and an edge line . . . representing the outer surface of the pork side proximate the fat/lean line” and uses those lines to calculate “the height, width, and length of the [meat product].” Ex. 1004, 23:12–25, 24:10–22. As part of routine 240, controller 172 uses that information to set the cutting profile of knife assembly 100 “so that the assembly follows a fixed distance from the separation line to provide the optimum fat cover for the loin.” Id. at 18:35–39 (emphasis added). Notably, according to Young, the “fixed distance” represents the “desired” thickness of fat that remains on the meat, after cutting, and “sufficiently keeps the loin from drying out, but doesn’t make the loin look too fat.” Id. at 20:60–66; see also id. at 10:39–42 (“Through control of the knife blade along several axes, assembly 100 preferably produces an optimum separation between loin and belly, with a desired fat covering left on the loin.” (emphasis added)). Young’s disclosure that image processing routine 240 determines a “fixed distance” from the loin/fat separation line at which to cut the meat product undoubtedly corresponds to the claimed “determination of the thickness of the fat cover . . . in a contactless manner.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–112. Indeed, Young discloses specific dimensions for the desired optimum fat cover to remain on the meat—“a fixed distance (preferably 0.1 inch) from the fat/lean separation line 6.” Ex. 1004, 20:55–63.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,529,321 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00131 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 on all petitioned grounds and granted ecobee’s motion to join the Copeland IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Copeland IPR. Copeland IPR, Paper 12, 2 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2023). Petitioner challenges the same claims and asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as those on which we instituted the Copeland IPR. Mot. 1 (The Petition and” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Practice Guide (“CTPG”) for evaluating a joinder motion.8 CTPG 76 (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Softview, LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, 4 (PTAB April 24, 2013)) and contends the factors weigh in favor of exercising our discretion to join Petitioner as a party to the Copeland IPR. Mot. 4. In evaluating the Motion, we consider the reasons why joinder may be appropriate, whether the Petition presents any new grounds of patentability, the impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule in the Copeland IPR, and how briefing and discovery may be simplified. CTPG 76.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“For this factor, our concerns are the “inefficiency” of addressing “substantially identical prior art arguments that were at issue in the district court” and the resulting “possibility of conflicting decisions.” Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 12. The Director’s Fintiv Memo is in accord with these concerns. Fintiv Memo at 7 (“[T]he PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”). Because there is no possibility of our Final Written Decision in the joined proceeding conflicting with the judgment of the district court, and there will be little, if any, inefficiency or burden on the Board in proceeding with joinder, we find that this factor weighs heavily against exercising our discretion to deny institution/joinder.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“Patent Owner admits that Petitioner has not previously filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’887 patent. Opp. 12. Under Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB April 2, 2019) (precedential), General Plastic may apply when parties that have a “significant relationship” file successive petitions against the same patent. Valve Corp., Paper 11 at 10. In Valve, the successive petitioners were found to have a significant relationship because they were “co-defendants in the District Court litigation and were accused of infringing” the patent being challenged before the Board. Id. Patent Owner admits it “is not aware of a close relationship between Petitioner and Copeland Comfort Control LP.” Prelim. Sur-reply 4. In fact, Copeland and Petitioner are not co-defendants. Consequently, there is no “significant relationship” between Petitioner and Copeland. Patent Owner argues that General Plastic Factors 2, 4, and 6 weigh against joinder. Opp. 14. The Director, however, recently determined that where “the first and second petitioners are neither the same party, nor possess a significant relationship under Valve, General Plastic factor one necessarily outweighs the other General Plastic factors” and that “exercising discretion to deny the Petition is not justified.” Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited, IPR2023-01218, Paper 12, 6–7 (PTAB April 19, 2024) (Decision Granting Director Review). Regardless of whether the other factors weigh against joinder or not, factor one “necessarily outweighs” the other factors. Consequently, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution or joinder in this case based on General Plastic.” slip op. at 17
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,746,887 - Millerknoll, Inc. v. Aaron DejuleInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01428 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–10, 14, 15, and 18–22 because Petitioner did not identify corresponding structure for the § 112(f) adjusting assembly limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under these circumstances, the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claim 1. See Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 15, 17 (PTAB March 15, 2023) (“Because Petitioner has not identified structure corresponding to the functions recited in claims 1 and 5, we cannot ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the asserted prior art, as required [to evaluate obviousness]. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing claims 1 and 5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bird and Ishii.”); HTC Corp. v Lemaire Illumination Techs., LLC, IPR2019-00092, Paper 7 at 20 (PTAB Apr. 29, 2019) (“Petitioner . . . fails to identify structure described in the Specification of the ’266 patent that corresponds to the claimed function as is required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) . . . . Consequently, Petitioner also fails to explain how that corresponding structure or an equivalent thereof is met by its proposed combination of [prior art references].”); ZTE Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2018-00235, Paper 9 at 11 (PTAB June 1, 2018) (“Petitioner has not satisfied the claim construction requirement set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) with respect to certain limitations in independent claims 1, 6, and 10. Based on this deficiency in the Petition, which affects all of the challenged claims, we deny institution of inter partes review.”); Unified Patents Inc. v. Blackbird Tech LLC, IPR2017-01525, Paper 11 at 14 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2017) (“Petitioner does not ‘identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function,’ as required by our Rules (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)), to enable us to determine if the asserted prior art teaches such structure. Thus, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to independent claims 2, 7, and 10 as well as its challenge to claims 11, 13, 16, and 19.”); Panel Claw, Inc. v. SunPower Corp., IPR2014-00386, Paper 7 at 9–10 (PTAB June 30, 2014) (Petitioner’s failure to identify corresponding structure for a means-plus-function limitation warranted denial of institution for all claims that included that limitation). Because the claims 2–10, 14, 15, and 18–22 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, Petitioner’s challenge to these claims fails for the same reasons.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Petitioner contends that person of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’498 patent pertains “would have had a bachelor’s degree in industrial design, mechanical engineering, and/or a related field, and at least 2–3 years of experience designing furniture.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶ 29). Patent Owner “forgoes offering a competing definition of the level of ordinary skill,” at the current stage of this proceeding, stating that “under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner’s challenges fail to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to any claim of the ’498 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, and in view of the parties’ representations, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the relevant level of skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’498 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“‘[a]djusting assembly’ is not a recognized term of art in the field of the ’498 Patent” and “[a]s used in the claims of the ’498 Patent, it should be construed as a means-plus-function (‘MPF’) claim element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶ 47). Petitioner bases this assertion on its expert’s opinions that “claim 1 does not recite sufficient structure for performing th[e] function” recited in the “adjusting assembly” limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not consider ‘adjusting assembly’ to refer to any specific structure.” Id. (citing Ex. 1108 ¶ 52); see also id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 54–59) (“Nor do the claims otherwise recite sufficient structure for providing the claimed function.”) Further, Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 uses ‘adjusting assembly’ as a ‘nonce’ term that operates as a substitute for ‘means’ to claim a function.” Id. at 10 (citing MTD Prods. Inc. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1341–45 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding “mechanical control assembly” operated as nonce term)). For its part, “Patent Owner agrees that means-plus-function treatment is appropriate for the ‘adjusting assembly,’” although taking this position “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only.” Prelim. Resp. 8 n.5. Based on the current record, we agree with the parties’ positions that the “adjusting assembly” limitation of the ’498 patent should be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Although the word “means” does not appear in the limitation, the claim language itself does not recite structure that, per the recited function, “cooperat[es] between the first component and the at least second component” and “changes [the] magnitude” of “the force required to be applied in the second manner to reconfigure the apparatus and move the second component relative to the first component,” “as an incident of the force being applied in the first manner changing in magnitude.” In other words, claim 1 appears to lack sufficient structure for performing the stated function of the “adjusting assembly.” See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Mr. Koepke’s opinion, which is unrebutted at this point, that the term “adjusting assembly” would not connote any specific structure, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the relevant time (see Ex. 1108 ¶ 52), supports our conclusion that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applies to the “adjusting assembly” limitation. slip op. at 19
- BurdenDenied
“As to the purportedly corresponding structure, in the ’498 patent Specification, Petitioner identifies only two structures for performing the recited function of the “adjusting assembly”: a “tilting spring” and a “weighing spring.” See Pet. 10–14. Petitioner characterizes a “tilting spring” as “a spring structure that” slip op. at 21
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,292,498 - Millerknoll, Inc. v. Aaron DejuleInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01427 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Schmitz or Takamatsu anticipates any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). 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 determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenges in the Petition. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function . . . and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The use of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applies and, conversely, the absence of the term “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that this statutory mandate does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, in relevant part). These presumptions can be overcome, however, if the claim limitation “fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Indeed, as the Federal Circuit has emphasized, the essential inquiry is not merely the presence or absence of the word “means” but whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownOther
“on incorrect aspects of Petitioner’s proposed construction because Petitioner’s faulty construction fatally undermines Petitioner’s anticipation challenges. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s construction fails to give adequate weight, or any weight, to the “plurality of gears” aspect of the “adjusting assembly” limitation. Petitioner acknowledges the “plurality of gears” language when arguing that the presence of this structure in the claim does not prevent that the “adjusting assembly” limitation from being construed as a means-plus-function limitation, but Petitioner does not include the functional requirements of the gears in its identification of the claimed function or identify the gears as part of the structure in the Specification that performs the claimed function. See Pet. 13–17. Both of these approaches are erroneous and lead to an incorrect construction of the “adjusting assembly” limitation. The adjusting assembly limitation requires “an adjusting assembly comprising a plurality of gears that cooperate and move relative to each other as an incident of the seat moving from the first position into the loaded position configured to thereby increase a resistance to changing of the angular orientation of the back rest from the starting angular position.” Ex. 1001, claim 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the plain language of the claim requires an adjusting assembly that includes gears that perform a certain function (“cooperate and move relative to each other . . .”). Petitioner’s identified function focuses on the “increase a resistance” functional language and improperly omits the functional language associated” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “This reference point prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet, hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id. Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field. Env’t Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In determining a level of ordinary skill, we also may look to the prior art, which may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in industrial design, mechanical engineering, and/or a related field, and at least 2–3 years of experience designing furniture.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 22–23). Patent Owner states that “for the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner forgoes offering a competing definition of the level of ordinary skill.” Prelim. Resp. 7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we view as consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’753 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,893,753 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01399 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Wolfe renders claim 1 obvious under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “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).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The asserted prior art, like the challenged patent, presents high-level schematics and functional descriptions of various system components used in monitoring events and crowd behavior using location-based services. These system components largely include servers, websites, and mobile telephones utilizing wireless technologies, such as Wi-Fi, cellular, and global positioning system (GPS) to communicate and generate location data regarding mobile devices, as well as the use of databases to store historical information related to location-based services. The prior art and the patent provide description of monitoring crowd behavior by tracking the location of groups of mobile devices. Neither the challenged patent nor the asserted” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“we agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition.” Pet. 14. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–48. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:14–16; Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:16–20). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:15–20, 5:31–35, 5:41–42 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:55–57; see Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–36, 5:51–57). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableInstituted
“institution. On this preliminary record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that responsive to the network monitor observing a significant aggregation of devices in a particular area, application 322 functions as a crowd risk determinant because the application 322 assesses the needs arising from the aggregation of devices in that area. Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 46. Additionally, although the example provided in Wolfe relates to determining the number of pizza slices needed based on how many devices are in particular location, on this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement a similar risk analysis to determine that police patrols would be needed in a particular area, as taught by Wolfe, based on the determination of crowd’s location, activity, and movement. Id. at 14.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,158 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01398 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Wolfe and Pfeffer.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Guy (Ex. 1003), Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing” and would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science/computer engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further notes that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of this Institution Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition” for “indication of a viral event.” Pet. 13. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:40–43. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–12; Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–15). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:12–14, 5:27–31, 5:35 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:48–51; see Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:26–31, 5:45–51). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“4. The Combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer To demonstrate obviousness, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. More specifically, to prevail, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regarding the required articulate reasoning, Petitioner contends that “[a]lthough Wolfe teaches providing relevant crowd information to police, Wolfe does not provide the details for how to alert and notify the police.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14). “Pfeffer, however, fills in Wolfe’s details by specifically teaching techniques for receiving information about crowds, evaluating the information, and alerting first responders when needed,” according to Petitioner. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 40–41). Petitioner also contends that the combination would provide additional benefits to Wolfe’s system from Pfeffer’s additional features, such as providing “continuous updates to the incident scenario model saved for future use, recommendations for the most effective methods to respond to the incident based on past responses and current trends, and determining if an incident should be elevated based on the number of people involved in the incident.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28, 77, 85). Regarding the required expectation of success, Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have found the combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer predictable” because they are similar in that “both systems analyze crowd information to identify safety risks.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75; Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 14; Ex. 1005 ¶ 28). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success when combining Wolfe and Pfeffer because [they] are implemented in the same manner,” with both being implemented on servers and with Pfeffer indicating that its techniques could be “any combination of software and/or hardware that is configured to perform one or more tasks.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70, 74; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 32). Petitioner also contends “the combination would use known techniques (Pfeffer’s implementation details of an incident response method) to improve a similar system (Wolfe’s crowd detection and incident response system) in the same way (providing crowd details and incident information to first responders so that they may better respond to comprised crowd safety).” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79). Petitioner’s showing (Pet. 23–27) of articulated reasoning to support” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,198,054
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.