• Roland Corporation v. Inmusic Brands, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2018 · IPR2018-00396 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable, failing to address the claimed proportional signal relationship.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner must establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We construe claim terms to the extent necessary for our analysis on whether to institute a trial. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Consequently, we address below Petitioner’s construction of the claim limitation “wherein an electrical signal generated by the foot pedal control module is proportional to the position of the control shaft relative to the foot pedal control module.” We further address that limitation’s constituent term “proportional.” We determine that construction of any additional terms is unnecessary for our analysis on whether to institute the requested inter partes review, and therefore, do not construe any additional terms below. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 13

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

    “construe the claim term “proportional” as requiring a constant relationship, such as, for example, a linear relationship. Turing first to the intrinsic evidence, the claims and Specification of the ’758 patent do not elaborate on nature of the control signal generated by the foot pedal control module beyond describing one embodiment in which the signal is “proportional to the plunger 116 position to the drum synthesizer through the cables.” Ex. 1001, 4:30–33. The prosecution history also does not explicitly define the term “proportional;” however, the Examiner relies on the “position-proportional signal” as a reason for allowance of the claims. Ex. 1005, 6. Although extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction, here, certain extrinsic evidence informs our construction in the absence of a more fulsome intrinsic record. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The dictionary definition Patent Owner proffers supports our construction of “proportional” as requiring a constant relationship. Ex. 2002. Our understanding of this term is further informed by a relevant technical dictionary, namely The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms (7th ed., IEEE Press 2000) (Ex. 3001). The IEEE dictionary defines “proportionally” by citing “linearity” and linearity as: “linearity (1) (analog computer) A property of a component describing a constant ratio of incremental cause and effect. Proportionality is a special case of linearity in which the straight line passes through the origin. . . .” Ex. 3001, 690, 880. Also, relevant in light of the claimed control signal, the IEEE dictionary defines a “proportional amplifier” as “[a]n amplifier in which the output is a single value and an approximately linear function of the input over its operating range” and a “proportional control action” as “[a] control mode designed to provide a linear relationship between the controller output and input, assuming both are within normal range.” Id. at 879. These definitions show the common understanding that usage of term “proportional” when used to describe an electrical signal indicates the signal maintains a constant relationship, such as, for example, a linear relationship. Accordingly, in light of the foregoing intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, we construe the claim term “proportional” as requiring a constant relationship, such as, for example, a linear relationship.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner has not addressed sufficiently how the YouTubePost discloses that the electrical signal proportional signal generated by YouTubePost’s foot pedal control module is proportional to the position of the control shaft relative to the foot pedal control module. A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if every element set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631. Here, the cited portions of YouTubePost and Petitioner’s corresponding argument, at best, show only that the electrical signal generated by YouTubePost’s foot pedal control module can be toggled between two positions, either quickly or slowly. Pet. 26–27, 31–33. Dr. Paradiso’s testimony on this issue is unavailing because it merely repeats the statements of the Petition. Compare id., with Ex. 1002, 25, 29–30. Taken together, Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Paradiso’s testimony do not show in the record before us how the cited portions of YouTubePost expressly or inherently describe the control module’s signal having a constant relationship such as a linear relationship (i.e., being proportional) due to the position of the control shaft relative to control module. See also Ex. 1005, 6 (Examiner’s statement relying on the “position-proportional signal” as a reason for allowance of the claims). This claimed detail may not be omitted from Petitioner’s anticipation analysis. Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d at 1236 (“The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.”).” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,785,758
• Apple, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2016-01738 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8–12, 14–22, 59–82, 101–104, 114, 115, and 117 are unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 174–218.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “substitute claims “without placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner.” Aqua Products, 872 F.3d at 1328. Yet, Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims still must meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. See also “Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products” (Nov. 21, 2017) (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_ on_motions_to_amend_11_2017.pdf) (“Guidance”). Accordingly, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” slip op. at 51

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “substitute claims. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s arguments on this exhibits goes to the weight to be accorded to the evidence. The Board is capable of determining and assigning the appropriate weight to the evidence. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion as to Exhibit 1043.” slip op. at 72

  • Strike new argumentOther

    “IV. CHALLENGE TO PETITIONER’S REPLY ARGUMENTS Patent Owner filed a list of alleged improper reply arguments (Paper 34) to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 35). Patent Owner lists several portions of Petitioner’s Reply and evidence allegedly beyond the scope of what can be considered appropriate for a reply. See Paper 34. We have considered Patent Owner’s listing, but disagree that the cited portions of Petitioner’s Reply and reply evidence are beyond the scope of what is appropriate for a reply. Replies are a vehicle for responding to arguments raised in a corresponding patent owner response. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence that Patent Owner objects to are not beyond the proper scope of a reply; rather, we find that they fairly respond to Patent Owner’s arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response. See Idemitsu Kosan Co. v. SFC LTD, 870 F.3d 1376, 1381: This back-and-forth shows that what Idemitsu characterizes as an argument raised “too late” is simply the by-product of one party necessarily getting the last word. If anything, Idemitsu is the party that first raised this issue, by arguing—at least implicitly—that Arkane teaches away from non-energy-gap combinations. SFC simply countered, as it was entitled to do. We also note for each of the items in Patent Owner’s list, Petitioner cites to pages in the Petition for support. See e.g., Paper 35, 2 (“Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found at, for example, pages 13–16 of the Petition.”), 4 (“Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found at, for example, pages 39–41 of the Petition.”); 5 (“Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found, for example, at pages 6–16, 28–29, and 32–34 of the Petition.”); 6 (“Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found, for example, at pages 11–16 of the Petition.”); 8 (“Support for Petitioner’s argument can be found, for example, at pages 11–16 of the Petition.”).” slip op. at 72

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “updating boot data lists by removing an association of control information that is associated with management information Table 3A. Specifically, we credit the testimony of Dr. Neuhauser, who explains how and why Sukegawa renders obvious updating a boot data list by disassociating non-accessed boot data from the boot data list. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 474–478 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:40–55). Dr. Neuhauser concludes an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have []found it obvious based on their knowledge of cache operation that upon the deletion of the non-accessed control information, or boot data, that management information table 3A is updated to reflect the deletion.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 474. Accordingly, we find Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 20, 102, and 104 of the ’862 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sukegawa and Dye.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,880,862 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,880,862
• Apple, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01739 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 35–46, 97, 98, and 112 are unpatentable under § 103 over at least one instituted combination; claim 46 was not shown unpatentable over Settsu alone or with Zwiegincew.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedUnpatentable

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Claims 5, 35–45, and 97 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Settsu; (2) Claims 5, 35– 45, 97, 98, and 112 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Settsu and Zwiegincew; (3) Claims 5, 35–46, and 97 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Settsu and Dye; and (4) Claims 5, 35–46, 97, 98, and 112 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Settsu, Zwiegincew, and Dye. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, by a preponderance of the evidence, claims 5, 35–46, 97, 98, and 112 of the ’862 patent are unpatentable;” slip op. at 46

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

    “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Therefore, we consult the patent’s specification to help clarify the meaning of claim terms. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part” (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996))). We must be careful, however, not to import improperly limitations into the claims or to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Given our mandate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) and the patent’s various descriptions of “boot data list,” we understand that the examples laid out in the specification are exemplary and are not to be read as limitations in the claims. Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction imports selected limitations from specific embodiments in the specification into the claim and provides an overly narrow interpretation of the claim term. Additionally, Patent Owner has not pointed to any definitions or disavowals in the specification or otherwise clearly explained why the specification’s disclosure of “boot data lists” should not guide our claim construction analysis. Thus, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions, which appear to be based on a narrow reading of the claim that is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction as it would limit unnecessarily the scope of the claims. Instead, we find the broadest reasonable construction of “boot data list” to encompass a “list of boot data.”” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Neuhauser’ testimony. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Godmar Back (“Dr. Back”), however, provides his own assessment regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’862 patent and agrees with Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony. Ex. 2008 ¶ 50. We do not observe a meaningful differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment. Based on our review of the ’862 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’862 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Neuhauser and Dr. Back, we adopt and apply Dr. Back’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision. D. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Settsu fails to teach “updating a boot list.” Rather, we agree with the testimony of Dr. Neuhauser regarding the similarities between Settsu’s OS and the functionality of the Windows 98 OS, and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered updates to have occurred to the boot data lists in Settsu. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 117; Ex. 1003, 5:39–51, 13:55–65, 14:44–52, 16:7–17:62, Figs. 12, 20(ST213). Specifically, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that OS modules, such as Settsu’s, would have required updates when new, updated code becomes available. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 117 (citing O’Reilly 110–112). We agree with Dr. Neuhauser that to accomplish these updates, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that updates occur to boot data lists in Settsu; namely, updates to lists of boot data included within OS functional module files stored in boot device 3, as well as updates to lists of boot data, such as the function definition file 71 or the OS main body module 8. See id. Given the explicit teaching of Settsu and the credible testimony of Dr. Neuhauser regarding the state of the art and the knowledge of one of skill the art, we are unmoved by Patent Owner’s argument regarding the prosecution history of the ’862 patent or that the Examiner fully understood the implications of Settsu’s Figure 20. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the record and evidence, and crediting the testimony from Dr. Neuhauser (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78, 116–118), we determine that “updating the boot data list” is taught or suggested by Settsu, and the subject matter of the claim as whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art in view of Settsu.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,880,862 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,880,862
• Apple, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01737 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 13, 23–34, 47–58, 83–96, 99, 100, 105–111, 113, and 116 are unpatentable as obvious; substitute claims 118–173 are allowed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Therefore, we consult the patent’s specification to help clarify the meaning of claim terms. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part” (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996))). We must be careful, however, not to import improperly limitations into the claims or to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Given our mandate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) and the patent’s various descriptions of “boot data list,” we understand that the examples laid out in the specification are exemplary and are not to be read as limitations in the claims. Patent Owner’s proffered claim construction imports selected limitations from specific embodiments in the specification into the claim and provides an overly narrow interpretation of the claim term. Additionally, Patent Owner has not pointed to any definitions or disavowals in the specification or otherwise clearly explained why the specification’s disclosure of “boot data lists” should not guide our claim construction analysis. Thus, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contentions, which appear to be based on a narrow reading of the claim that is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s claim construction as it would limit unnecessarily the scope of the claims. Instead, we find the broadest reasonable construction of “boot data list” to encompass a “list of boot data.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Neuhauser’ testimony. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Godmar Back (“Dr. Back”), however, provides his own assessment regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’862 patent and agrees with Dr. Neuhauser’s testimony. Ex. 2008 ¶ 55. We do not observe a meaningful differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment. Based on our review of the ’862 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’862 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Neuhauser and Dr. Back, we adopt and apply Dr. Back’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision. D. Overview of the Asserted Prior Art” slip op. at 14

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

    “Based on (1) the teachings of Dye that are directed to improved memory capacity and performance, specifically improved data density, efficiency, and bandwidth (Ex. 1008, at [57], 2:42–46), (2) the teachings of Dye ’284 directed to implementing Dye’s techniques to hard disk drives and flash memory, and (3) crediting of the persuasive testimony of Dr. Neuhauser demonstrating both the applicability of Dye to Sukegawa and explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art teachings, we find Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the references as asserted.” slip op. at 33

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “of right, but rather must be proposed as a part of a Motion to Amend. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d). The Board must assess the patentability of proposed substitute claims “without placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner.” Aqua Products, 872 F.3d 1290. Yet, Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims still must meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and the procedural requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. See also “Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products” (Nov. 21, 2017) (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_ on_motions_to_amend_11_2017.pdf) (“Guidance”). Accordingly, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure. See Guidance. For reasons set forth below, we determine Patent Owner has satisfied its burden with respect to the above-discussed requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Patent Owner seeks to add fifty-five (55) substitute claims to replace the fifty-five (55) challenged claims found unpatentable, and each substitute claim adds limitations that purport to narrow the scope of the original claim it replaces. See Mot. 2–4, Claim Appendix, iii–xii. Patent Owner also identifies disclosures in the originally-filed application that fall within the scope of proposed substitute claims 118–173. Mot. 4–17 (citing Ex. 2010; Ex. 2017; Ex. 2022). Patent Owner further identifies support in the original specification for the limitation in substitute independent claims 118, 122, and 124 that the preloading may occur into volatile memory. Mot. 5–6 (citing Ex. 2017, 12:16–18 (“[T]he cache 13 may comprise volatile or non-volatile memory, or any combination thereof. Preferably, the cache 13 is implemented in SDRAM (static dynamic random access memory), 41:4– 9, 42:17–20, 43:13–14, Fig. 7B), 8–15.” According to the testimony of Dr. Back, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that SDRAM is volatile memory. See Ex. 2022 ¶ 23. We note that further support for substitute claims 118–173 can be found in the original specification’s discussion of preloading portions of the computer operating system from the boot device (e.g., hard disk) into the onboard cache memory. Ex. 2017, 41:4–5. We, thus, find written description support for Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims. Moreover, Patent Owner proposes a narrowing limitation in each proposed substitute claim in direct response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this trial. Therefore, Patent Owner has satisfied the procedural” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 8,880,862 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,880,862
• Apple, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2018 · IPR2016-01365 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Sukegawa and Dye under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts, through its declarant Dr. Neuhauser, one of ordinary skill would be a person with a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related area of study. In addition, this person would have between three and five years of practical experience in the design and implementation of computer systems, such as personal computers. Alternatively, a person with a Master’s Degree in the area of electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related area of study and somewhat less practical experience would be similarly qualified (Ex. 1003 ¶ 15). Patent Owner does not appear to dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition, and indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Back, agrees with Dr. Neuhauser as to the level of ordinary skill in the art (Ex. 2003 ¶ 42). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s assessment of a level of skill in the art. We note also that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention (see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “The prefix “pre” means “before,” but absent additional information, does not convey how long “before” is. As such, Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation is too narrow. For example, Dictionary of Computer and Internet Words defines “load” as “[t]o transfer a program from a storage device into a computer’s memory” (Ex. 2005, 3). The IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary defines “load” as “[t]o copy computer instructions or data from external storage to internal storage or from internal storage to registers” (Ex. 2006, 3–4; see Ex. 2008, 4). Indeed, none of the proffered definitions includes any time component for use of the loaded data. “Preloading,” thus, would be copying computer instructions or data from external storage to internal storage or from internal storage to registers before an unspecified event occurs.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “technology (Ex. 1008, Abstract). In particular, Dye teaches Compression Enhanced Flash Memory controller (CEFMC) allow data to be stored in normal or compressed format or transmitted and stored on a medium in normal or compressed format (id. at 3:66–4:8, 7:35–43, 8:6–12). Dye ’284 teaches data may be stored in compressed form on non-volatile memory (Ex. 1009, 4:16–24) and that such data may include program data and operating system data (id. at 11:32–35, 38:30–42, Figs. 22, 23). As set forth by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Neuhauser, Dye ’284 “describes benefits of using compression in several types of computer system storage devices, including hard disks, such as Sukegawa’s HDD2, and flash memory devices, such as Sukegawa’s flash memory unit” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1009, 4:16–24, 8:44–53, 11:28–37, 11:54–12:33; Ex. 1008, Abstract, 7:34–43)). We credit Dr. Neuhauser’s statement that Sukegawa’s HDD2 and flash memory unit 1 are “hard disks and flash memory,” respectively, as described in Dye ’284 (id.). We further credit Dr. Neuhauser’s statement that “[b]ased on the clear teachings of Dye with respect to the advantages of data compression, one of ordinary skill [would] have been motivated to apply Dye to the system of Sukegawa to obtain improved performance of [Sukegawa’s] Flash Memory Unit 1” (id. ¶ 67; see id. ¶¶ 119–121).” slip op. at 40

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

    “combination of Sukegawa and Dye teaches the disputed limitation. “‘To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents’” (Apple Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 725 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). The host document must “[cite the] material in a manner that makes clear that the material is effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein” (Advanced Display Sys. Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.Cir.2000)). Here, unlike in the cases cited by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 46, n.138), Dye specifically states the U.S. patent application (now Dye ’284) is “incorporated by reference in its entirety as though fully and completely set forth herein” (Ex. 1008, 6:3–9). Indeed, as noted by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 24–25), the specific material to be incorporated is identified with detailed particularity: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/239,659 titled “Bandwidth Reducing Memory Controller Including Scalable Embedded Parallel Data Compression and Decompression Engines[,]” which was filed on Jan. 29, 1999 (5143-01700), is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety as though fully and completely set forth herein (Ex. 1008, 6:3–9). Dye additionally refers to specific features of Dye ’284 (id. at 3:66–4:19). Thus, Dye cited Dye ’284 in a manner that makes clear that Dye ’284 is effectively part of Dye, as if it were explicitly therein, and accordingly, Dye properly incorporates Dye ’284 by reference. We further note that Dye is a continuation-in-part of Dye ’284 and thus, has a significant amount of overlapping disclosure (id. at 1:9–13, [63]). Petitioner relies on the combination of Sukegawa’s HDD2 (boot drive) and Dye’s teaching of compressed data on the boot device (Pet. 33– 35). Petitioner asserts because “‘the storage area of the flash memory is limited’ in Sukegawa, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have appreciated how compression would have improved storage capacity of Sukegawa’s flash memory unit 1, as well as speed of data access” (Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 241; Ex. 1005, 2:28–29)). According to Petitioner, “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to modify Sukegawa to increase the effective density and read access rate of the non-volatile storage devices in Sukegawa’s system, and to thereby achieve further reduction in the time required for booting up” (Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–121)). Petitioner points to Dye as explaining “how compression ‘improves system wide memory density and data bandwidth” and “allows lower cost systems due to smaller data storage” and “reduced bandwidth requirements’” (Pet. Reply 26 (citing Ex. 1008, Abstract)(emphasis omitted)). Petitioner further asserts Dye renders compression on Sukegawa’s hard disk drive obvious (Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1008, Abstract, 2:42–4:55, 7:34–9:5, 10:19–41); Pet. Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1008, Abstract, 2:42–4:55, 7:34–9:5, 10:19–41)). Petitioner additionally contends “Dye ’284 [] describes the use of a controller including ‘the compression/decompression engine’ to compress the same types of data that are stored in Sukegawa’s HDD2 and flash memory unit 1: namely, ‘application data’ and ‘operating system data’” (Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1009 11:32–35, 38:29–39:44, FIGS. 22, 23)). Therefore, Petitioner asserts “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated by Dye to store Sukegawa’s control information (e.g., OS/AP) on HDD2 in compressed form and load the compressed control information from the HDD2 into Sukegawa’s flash memory unit 1 as compressed data (Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 120)). Dye teaches use of parallel compression and decompression technology (Ex. 1008, Abstract). In particular, Dye teaches Compression Enhanced Flash Memory controller (CEFMC) allow data to be stored in normal or compressed format or transmitted and stored on a medium in normal or compressed format (id. at 3:66–4:8, 7:35–43, 8:6–12). Dye ’284 teaches data may be stored in compressed form on non-volatile memory (Ex. 1009, 4:16–24) and that such data may include program data and operating system data (id. at 11:32–35, 38:30–42, Figs. 22, 23). As set forth by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Neuhauser, Dye ’284 “describes benefits of using compression in several types of computer system storage devices, including hard disks, such as Sukegawa’s HDD2, and flash memory devices, such as Sukegawa’s flash memory unit” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1009, 4:16–24, 8:44–53, 11:28–37, 11:54–12:33; Ex. 1008, Abstract, 7:34–43)). We credit Dr. Neuhauser’s statement that Sukegawa’s HDD2 and flash memory unit 1 are “hard disks and flash memory,” respectively, as described in Dye ’284 (id.). We further credit Dr. Neuhauser’s statement that “[b]ased on the clear teachings of Dye with respect to the advantages of data compression, one of ordinary skill [would] have been motivated to apply Dye to the system of Sukegawa to obtain improved performance of [Sukegawa’s] Flash Memory Unit 1” (id. ¶ 67; see id. ¶¶ 119–121). Furthermore, Petitioner is not relying on incorporation of Dye’s controller, but rather on Dye’s data compression/decompression and storage of compressed/decompressed data (Pet. 33–35).” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 7,181,608 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,181,608
• Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2017-00985 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left institution denied for claims 1–3 because the petition lacked required means-plus-function constructions under the adopted claim-construction standard.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, with specificity, all matters that the moving party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached

    “Under our Rules setting forth the requirements for the content of the petition, “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function . . . limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. [§ 112, ¶ 6], the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (emphasis added); see Inst. Dec. 13. Thus, where the challenged claim contains a means-plus-function limitation, the petition must provide a means-plus-function construction for that limitation. Consequently, it was not our task to determine first whether the word “controller” is a nonce word potentially subjecting the claim terms to treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and only then to receive arguments from Petitioner on their construction. See Reh’g Req. 4 (“Without a predicate finding that § 112, ¶ 6 applies, the Petition’s silence on the identity of a ‘corresponding structure’ had no relevance to the issue of claim construction.” (emphasis added)). Our Rules do not require such a “predicate finding,” and we made no such finding regarding the construction of the “controller” terms. See Inst. Dec. 11 (“For the reasons set forth below, we do not need to construe this claim term or determine its definiteness.”). In the absence of arguments under the appropriate standard from at least Petitioner during the Preliminary Proceeding, we have no basis for construing the “controller” terms. See id. at 13–14 (“The analysis of Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1–3 begins and ends with Petitioner’s failure to provide constructions of the claim terms including “controller” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and we cannot evaluate Petitioner’s asserted ground with respect to claims 1–3 in the absence of such constructions.”).” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Under our Rules setting forth the requirements for the content of the petition, “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function . . . limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. [§ 112, ¶ 6], the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (emphasis added); see Inst. Dec. 13. Thus, where the challenged claim contains a means-plus-function limitation, the petition must provide a means-plus-function construction for that limitation. Consequently, it was not our task to determine first whether the word “controller” is a nonce word potentially subjecting the claim terms to treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and only then to receive arguments from Petitioner on their construction. See Reh’g Req. 4 (“Without a predicate finding that § 112, ¶ 6 applies, the Petition’s silence on the identity of a ‘corresponding structure’ had no relevance to the issue of claim construction.” (emphasis added)). Our Rules do not require such a “predicate finding,” and we made no such finding regarding the construction of the “controller” terms. See Inst. Dec. 11 (“For the reasons set forth below, we do not need to construe this claim term or determine its definiteness.”). In the absence of arguments under the appropriate standard from at least Petitioner during the Preliminary Proceeding, we have no basis for construing the “controller” terms. See id. at 13–14 (“The analysis of Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1–3 begins and ends with Petitioner’s failure to provide constructions of the claim terms including “controller” under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and we cannot evaluate Petitioner’s asserted ground with respect to claims 1–3 in the absence of such constructions.”). It was Petitioner’s task to determine the necessary claim term constructions to support its request for inter partes review and to present those constructions as part of its Petition. Petitioner failed to do that here with respect to the “controller” terms. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, we did not misapply the law governing interpretation of means- plus-function claim limitations; rather, due to the lack of any arguments or evidence from Petitioner, we did not and could not apply it at all. Consequently, we deny Petitioner’s request that we reconsider our Institution Decision and institute inter partes review of claims 1–3 of the ’371 patent.” slip op. at 6

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “It is hard to see where efficiency is achieved by having two tribunals simultaneously consider different claim constructions under the same standard.4 Nevertheless, we cannot find where Petitioner made this argument in its Petition or its Reply, nor does Petitioner identify where it previously raised this argument. See id. at 7–8; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”). It goes without saying that we could not have overlooked or misunderstood an argument not made, and it is not an abuse of discretion not to consider such an argument.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,125,371
• Sure-Fire Electrical Corporation v. Yongjiang Yin And Shenzhen El Lighting Co. Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2016 · IPR2014-01448 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its final written decision, leaving claims 1 and 7 unpatentable over He and Korodi under § 103.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 4

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

    “pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, concluding Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Specifically, we determined Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence claims 1 and 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over He and Korodi (Final Dec. 11–25). In light of our determination that Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 7 of the ’279 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over He and Korodi, we took no position on whether the same claims are also obvious over the combination of the teachings and suggestions of Gustafsson and He (id. at 25).” slip op. at 3

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,671,279
• Sure-Fire Electrical Corporation v. Yongjiang Yin And Shenzhen El Lighting Co. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2016 · IPR2014-01448 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 7 are unpatentable as obvious over He and Korodi; the Board did not reach the Gustafsson and He ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “its claims, but instead, recited only “emits.” Patent Owner has not proffered any evidence or argument as to why “emits and dies” used in the ’279 Patent Specification, would have been abbreviated to “emits” in recitation of the claims. Nor is the term “emits” defined explicitly in the ’279 Patent Specification. Thus, we begin with the assumption that the term “emits” does not include “and dies,” as that comports with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “emits” Thus, taking the plain and ordinary meaning at the time of the invention, we interpret “emits light in sequence” as “throws off or gives off or out light in a continuous or connected series” and interpret “emits in sequence” as “throws off or gives off or out, in a continuous or connected series” (see e.g., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 377, 1065 (10th ed. 2000)). Patent Owner has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument that “emits light in sequence” and “emits in sequence” should be read more narrowly than the plain and ordinary meaning as suggested by Patent Owner. Specifically, Patent Owner’s assertion that the Specification supports the proposed interpretation of “emits light in sequence” as “emits and dies light in sequence” is misplaced. The Specification of the ’279 Patent does not explicitly define “emits light in sequence” as “emits and dies light in sequence.” Nor is any explicit definition provided for “emits light in sequence” or “emits in sequence.” Patent Owner would have us import limitations disclosed in several of the embodiments, including Embodiment 1, to interpret “emits” as “emits and dies light in sequence” or “emits and” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner additionally asserts “Patent Owner specifically disclaimed emission of light over the full length of the cable, but rather limited the patent to segment by segment illumination along the length of the cable,” thereby limiting the phrase “emits light in sequence” (PO Resp. 43). Patent Owner identified pages 9–10 of the Response to Office Action filed September 18, 2009 (Ex. 1002, 25–26), as providing this disclaimer (PO Resp. 48–49). However, we agree with Petitioner that the statements in the Response to Office Action do not disclaim subject matter, nor do these statements provide an explicit definition of “emits,” “emits light in sequence, and “emits in sequence.” Indeed, the discussion, limited to claim 7, discusses the object of the invention and distinguishes the invention as recited in claim 7 over the cited prior art, Baumberg et al. (US 5,869,930) (Resp. to OA 9–10). This discussion does not qualify as “clear and unmistakable” disavowing statements as required to meet the “demanding standard for finding a disclaimer.” Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., No. 2015-1246, 2016 WL 363410, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2016). We, therefore, determine the term “emits light in sequence” and “emits in sequence” used in the claims, should not be interpreted as “emits and dies light of each electroluminescent cored bar or cord in succession, one after the other,” but instead, should be interpreted giving the terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention, in light of the Specification.” slip op. at 10

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

    “(PO Resp. 37–40). A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Innovention Toys, LLC, v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Nonetheless, we find Petitioner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings (Pet. 34–36; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 98–104). Specifically, Petitioner contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of He and Korodi because “such a modification is both a predictable variation and an incremental improvement” (Pet. 35). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious and “straight-forward” to replace the aluminum core wire in He with a power cord to create an improved illuminated cable using electroluminescent wires that light in sequence (id. at 36). Petitioner further asserts combining the teachings would “involve the merger of familiar elements according to their established functions, known methods, and predictable results” (id.). We agree with the Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to replace the core wire at the center of He’s cable with a power cord as taught by Korodi to create an improved illuminated cable. We find the combination of He and Korodi unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Indeed, we agree that combining the teachings would be a merger of familiar elements, Korodi’s power cord and He’s electroluminescent cable, that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in the recited cable which includes a main power cord and a plurality of electroluminescent cords which emit light in sequence when the main cord and the driver are live. To be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Additionally, as further support, we credit Petitioner’s Declarant’s, Dr. Mark Horenstein’s, testimony that replacing the aluminum core wire in He for the power cord in Korodi would have been a merger of familiar elements according to their established functions, known methods, and predictable results that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found obvious (Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 99, 102, 103).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,671,279 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,671,279
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00828 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30–37, 39, and 40 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley, with Wells or Lovelock added for specified dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Zond’s expert, Dr. Larry D. Hartsough, also testifies that, in the context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles (ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1201, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1223, 42:9–43:17. Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelOther

    “teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the 10 art” in the context of the ’779 patent,5 we are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the evidence in this record, we credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony (Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 39–46, 58–59) that magnets, such as those disclosed in Pinsley and Angelbeck, generate a magnetic field that substantially traps electrons in a plasma apparatus. Notably, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generate a magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1201, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Dr. Hartsough acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1223, 20:13–21:1. Both Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony (Ex. 1221 ¶¶ 39–46, 58–59) and Dr. Hartsough’s cross-examination testimony (Ex. 1223, 123:4–13) are consistent with the prior art of record, including the Admitted Prior Art, which recognizes a magnetic field is strongest at the poles of the magnet and weakest in the region at the center between the poles (Ex. 1201, 3:12–13). As discussed above, the prior art of record clearly shows that it was well-known in the art at the time of the invention to use magnets in a plasma apparatus for trapping electrons. Based on the prior art of record, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that “the use of magnets and their corresponding magnetic fields to trap electrons . . . was already known in the prior art,” at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1221 ¶ 37.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Here, GlobalFoundries relies upon Angelbeck and Pinsley to show that generating a magnetic field to trap electrons in a plasma apparatus was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 47–49, 52, 54–55. Indeed, both Angelbeck and Pinsley teach the use of a magnet to generate a magnetic field for increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms in a plasma apparatus. Ex. 1205, 2:43–48; Ex. 1206, 1:36–41. Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, also acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1223, 20:13–21:1. Moreover, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generates magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1201, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground 30 state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 120, 140–41. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. X-ray radiation” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779
• Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited / Fujitsu Semiconductor America, Inc. et al. v. Zond, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00917 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9, 20, 21, 38, and 44 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the specified combinations of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley with Gruber or Wells.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1262. We also recognize that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)); Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259–1262. Notwithstanding 10 that Dr. Hartsough provides a definition of “a person of ordinary skill in the art” in the context of the ’779 patent,6 we are mindful that the level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “context of the ’779 patent, one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that a plasma includes charged particles (ions and electrons), as well as neutral atoms—namely, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms—because not every atom is ionized. Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. We observe that the ’779 patent uses the term “plasma” in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. For instance, the Specification of the ’779 patent states that “[a] plasma is a collection of charged particles that move in random directions,” and further explains that a plasma also includes excited and metastable atoms. Ex. 1401, 1:7–8, 8:43–48. We are cognizant that, in an ideal situation, a plasma can be fully ionized, which contains only charged particles (ions and electrons). Ex. 1419, 42:9–43:17. 9 Based on the evidence before us, we construe the claim term “plasma” as “a collection of ions, electrons, ground state atoms, excited atoms, and metastable atoms,” consistent with the term’s ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Specification of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Here, GlobalFoundries relies upon Angelbeck and Pinsley to show that generating a magnetic field to trap electrons in a plasma apparatus was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 44–47. Indeed, both Angelbeck and Pinsley teach the use of a magnet to generate a magnetic field for increasing the efficiency of exciting atoms in a plasma apparatus. Ex. 1405, 2:43–48; Ex. 1406, 1:36–41. Zond’s expert, Dr. Hartsough, also acknowledges that, since the mid-1970s, using magnets for trapping electrons in magnetron sputtering systems was well-known in the art. Ex. 1419, 20:13–21:1. Moreover, the Admitted Prior Art (Figure 1 of the ’779 patent) discloses a plasma sputtering apparatus, having magnets that generates magnetic field to trap electrons. Ex. 1401, 3:9–18 (“The magnetic field 132 is shaped to trap and concentrate secondary electrons proximate to the target surface.”). Given the evidence before us, we agree with Dr. Kortshagen that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley, to use a magnet with Iwamura’s pre-excitation unit and first plasma generation unit—which are located proximate to the ground state atoms source (gas supply 20)—for generating a magnetic field to trap electrons, in order to increase the efficiency of excitation of ground state atoms. Ex. 1402 ¶ 139. We credit Dr. Kortshagen’s testimony, as it is 34 consistent with the disclosures of Angelbeck and Pinsley, and other prior art of record. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence in this entire record, we determine that GlobalFoundries has demonstrated that combining the technical disclosures of Iwamura, Angelbeck, and Pinsley is merely a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Therefore, GlobalFoundries has provided an articulated reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Iwamura in view of Angelbeck and Pinsley. Trapping electrons and ions” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 6,805,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,805,779

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.