• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00666 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required determination that access occurred during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00701 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition. Q So is it your opinion that the – the limitation 1B requires that the system determines whether or not the accesses by the -- the two electronic devices occurred within a predetermined period of time? A Yes.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01281 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at critical time. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, 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 3 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0113674 A1, published May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1003, “Baig”). 4 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0128547 A1, published July 1, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Laidlaw”). 5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,427,170 B1, issued July 30, 2002 (Ex. 1007, “Sitaraman”). 6 Harley Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1008, “Hahn”). 7 U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,030 B1, issued June 1, 2010 (Ex. 1009, “Xu”). 8 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0282328 A1, published Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1010, “Gerace”). 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7

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

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) (2023). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,715,878
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2023-00441 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 and 17–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not disclose a “pre-set UE number” under the adopted construction.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded to maintain our preliminary construction. Indeed, as already noted, Petitioner does not argue for the preliminary construction. Neither does Petitioner question the validity of the reasons given for the District Court’s construction. Rather, Petitioner repeats its position that it “takes no position on the District Court’s construction” and Petitioner does not have any reason “as to why that construction is wrong or right.” Tr. 18:24–19:6. We do not see any reason to construe “pre-set UE number” contrary to what the District Court has determined. Indeed, we find the District Court’s analysis of the issue highly persuasive and adopt it as our own. And Petitioner has not provided any argument regarding construction of the term, simply taking no position on its correctness.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner has forfeited the indefiniteness argument. Regardless, we are given no reason to find construction of the two means-plus function terms impossible given the District Court determination. We agree that the scope of the terms is based on a means-plus function analysis. We are not persuaded that structure is not sufficiently described.” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that this argument was not presented in the Petition and is too late and/or incorrect. Sur-reply 5. We agree with Patent Owner. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board were given any notice of this argument in the Petition. Regardless, we find no merit in Petitioner’s argument. Fundamentally, our jurisdiction regarding patentability is limited to Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). We do not find that claim 18 is so indefinite that a patentability determination is impossible. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 802, 812–813 (Fed. Circ. 2021) (claim construction obligation “does not mean that the Board must reach a determination of the patentability of a claim on the presented prior-art grounds if such a determination is rendered impossible because of the indefiniteness of an essential claim limitation.”). Indeed, the District Court determined that the corresponding structure is a processor programmed to either (1) descramble a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) of Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling the RAR according to a pre-set RA-RNTI or an RA-RNTI corresponding to the preamble, and receive the RAR, the RAR including at least one TCRNTI and/or at least one Uplink (UL) grant. Ex. 2008, 23 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:4). (2) determine corresponding RA-RNTIs according to respective IDs and/or preambles, descramble a CRC of DCI for scheduling the RAR according to the corresponding RA-RNTIs, and receive corresponding RARs, the RAR including a TCRNTI and/or a UL grant allocated to the first UE or second UE.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Our construction of “pre-set UE number” is dispositive of this proceeding. See Section III.B.1 above. Petitioner agrees that both Li and Kim “don’t disclose that the message 3 includes a ‘pre-set number of UEs’” under our final construction of “pre-set UE number.” Pet. Reply 4; see also Tr. 7:20–22 (“Under [the District Court] construction, Li and Kim would not disclose Claim 1, at least Claim 1, of the ’430 patent”); 11:3–17 (Petitioner’s counsel arguing claim 18 is indefinite but agreeing neither claim 1 nor 18 have been shown unpatentable under the District Court construction of “preset UE number”). For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not shown a by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Li.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,448,430 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,448,430
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01598 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 6, 8–11, 15, 17, and 18 not shown unpatentable over Kannan because Kannan did not disclose the construed transmission blocks.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are not persuaded that “single entity” requires a separate construction or additional clarification, presumably by “testimonial evidence.” See Pet. Supp. Br. 4 n.1. Here, we need not determine the precise outer bounds of the term “transmission block,” including all the different types of single entities, because the Board is required to construe the claim to only the extent necessary to resolve the dispute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The relevant context for understanding what is a single entity is the disclosures of Kannan and the ’443 patent regarding “code block,” “transport block,” and “transmission block.” Those are the “single entities” and are the focus of the dispute. For the preceding reasons we adopt our preliminary construction of “transmission blocks” as our final construction. No additional terms are in dispute that require construction.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention of the ’443 patent “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of wireless communication technology.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill and “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art” because “it does not affect the ultimate analysis.” PO Resp. 11–12. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because we are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’443 patent. The proposed level of skill is consistent with the field of the invention as indicated by the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Kannan is based on the OSI model and describes control and data transmission on the MAC and PHY layers. Ex. 1006 ¶ 63. Kannan explains that “[w]ireless devices may exchange data using Medium Access Control (MAC) layer units known as transport blocks that may include a number of CBs.” Id. ¶ 8. Further, at the PHY layer, “a transport block may be divided into CBs.” Id. ¶ 52. Kannan continues to describe that “code blocks” “may be bundled into multiple bundles having a certain number of CBs.” Id. These parts of Kannan support the Akl Rebuttal Declaration conclusion’s regarding the OSI model in Kannan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 31–37, 49–50. Thus, we credit the Akl Rebuttal Declaration on this issue (id.) over Dr. Ding’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶ 13) because it is better supported by Kannan. Based on the preceding, we find that “code blocks” on the PHY layer are found only with “transport blocks” and are not a “separate entity.” See PO Supp. Br. 2.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Kannan is based on the OSI model and describes control and data transmission on the MAC and PHY layers. Ex. 1006 ¶ 63. Kannan explains that “[w]ireless devices may exchange data using Medium Access Control (MAC) layer units known as transport blocks that may include a number of CBs.” Id. ¶ 8. Further, at the PHY layer, “a transport block may be divided into CBs.” Id. ¶ 52. Kannan continues to describe that “code blocks” “may be bundled into multiple bundles having a certain number of CBs.” Id. These parts of Kannan support the Akl Rebuttal Declaration conclusion’s regarding the OSI model in Kannan. Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 31–37, 49–50. Thus, we credit the Akl Rebuttal Declaration on this issue (id.) over Dr. Ding’s testimony (Ex. 1016 ¶ 13) because it is better supported by Kannan. Based on the preceding, we find that “code blocks” on the PHY layer are found only with “transport blocks” and are not a “separate entity.” See PO Supp. Br. 2. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,594,443 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,594,443
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00633 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable because Lurie, alone or combined with the other cited references, did not teach proactive task retrieval; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Based on the fully developed trial record, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term “proactively” and, therefore, we construe this claim term as initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). Beginning with the intrinsic evidence, both parties appear to agree that the ’275 patent does not define the claim term “proactively” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. For example, during the oral hearing, counsel for Amazon indicated that the specification of the ’275 patent provides “some examples” of what it means to act “proactively,” but it does not provide a lexicographic definition. See Tr. 7:8–11:21. In the same vein, during oral argument, counsel for Swarm stated that “[w]e haven’t advocated for anything other than the plain and ordinary meaning of proactively.” Id. at 34:23–24. We” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, Amazon argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and about five years of industry or academic research experience in parallel or distributed computing, system architecture, or an equivalent.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–44). Amazon further argues that “[a] post-graduate degree or additional formal education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm does not address the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10–11. That is, we adopt Amazon’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’275 patent and the asserted prior art. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Amazon’s declarant, Dr. Lowenthal, provides testimony that supports our finding above. In his supplemental declaration in support of the Reply, Dr. Lowenthal testifies that, “[c]ertainly, Lurie initially sends an initial notification of ‘one or more tasks . . . becoming available.’ After that, . . . TCW [270] will obtain and process a first task.” Ex. 1040 ¶ 58 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 86) (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 87, 88) (second two alterations in original). He also testifies that the “one initial notification . . . kick[s] off the procedure” because it “informs all registered TCWs [270] that one or more tasks are available.” Id. ¶ 59. We credit the aforementioned testimony of Dr. Lowenthal’s because it is consistent with the disclosures in Lurie that we highlight above, most notably the kickoff notification.” slip op. at 30

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

    “As we explain in the claim construction section above, we accord the claim term “proactively” an ordinary and customary meaning of initiating change rather than reacting to events (i.e., not being told to act or not reactionary). See supra Section II.A. Contrary to our construction, Lurie’s TCW 270 only takes a task after receiving a kickoff notification and, therefore, it is not acting proactively. That is, Lurie’s TCW 270 reacts to the kickoff notification that a task is available or otherwise appears in object exchange repository 662 rather than initiates change by seeking a task from object exchange repository 662 without being notified to do so.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,592,275
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00141 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Juniper failed to show claims 1–7 and 9–17 unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground because the combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without any communication with the controller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Petition, Juniper argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would’ve had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11. Juniper further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could, alternatively, “have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60, 61). In its Patent Owner Response, Swarm appears to agree with Juniper because it repeats verbatim the same assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art offered by Juniper in its Petition. Compare PO Resp. 11, with Pet. 11. Accordingly, based on the fully developed trial record, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 10. That is, we adopt Juniper’s proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound and, therefore, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply this modified version of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In any event, even if we were to consider Juniper’s downstream theory, we do not find this belated argument persuasive. To support its downstream theory, Juniper relies on the Dr. Weissman’s testimony that “[t]echniques for avoiding [broadcast packets flooding the network] are well known in the art and may include downstream devices dropping, or filtering, broadcast packets to minimize processing load.” Ex. 1031 ¶ 36. We decline to credit this testimony for two reasons. First, apart from generically asserting that dropping or filtering broadcast packets minimizes processing load, Dr. Weissman does not attempt to explain how Leong’s surveying unit would be considered a “downstream device” from a newly added co-processor, much less why Leong’s surveying unit would need to filter or drop a broadcast packet sent by the newly added co-processor. Second, Dr. Weissman does not cite to any underlying evidence to support his testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 32

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

    “In any event, we need not construe any of the sixteen claim terms identified by Swarm in its Patent Owner Response because, when evaluating the merits of Juniper’s Petition in light of the arguments and evidence presented by Swarm during trial, the scope and meaning of the sixteen claim terms are not in controversy. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach those particular issues for purposes of deciding whether Juniper has met its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). In our obviousness evaluation below, we address the scope and meaning of the claim term “communication,” as this term pertains to the combined teachings of Leong and AppleTalkBook contested by the parties. More specifically, we address below whether Juniper’s proposed combination of Leong and AppleTalkBook teaches or suggests adding a coprocesser “on a plug-and-play basis without any communication with the controller,” as recited in each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ’275 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We begin our analysis with the plain language of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Each of these independent claims explicitly requires adding a co-processor “without any communication with the controller.” Ex. 1001, 14:40–44, 15:30–34, 16:30–34 (emphasis added). As we explained in the Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01445, the use of the word “any” precludes both communication with a response and communication without a response. IPR2021-01445, Paper 62 at 25. Turning to the disclosure in the specification of the ’275 patent cited by Juniper, we do not agree that those disclosures support limiting “communication” to only two-way messaging. The relevant passage in the specification states the following: Each cell 12 [is] configured to perform one or a plurality of specialized tasks, as illustrated in the following sequence of events. During a poll phase each cell periodically sends an agent to the task pool until a matching task is found. To facilitate this matching, both the cell and the task pool may be equipped with a transceiver. In the case of the task pool, the transceiver maybe [sic] located in the task pool itself or in the switching fabric to which the task pool is connected. When a task match is found within a task pool, the task pool transmits an acknowledgement to the cell. The next step is the “communication channel” phase. During the communication channel phase, the cell receives the task and begins to execute the task. In one implementation, once the first task is completed, the communication channel is maintained so that the solidar[it]y cell can fetch another task without having to repeat the “poll” and “acknowledge” phase. Ex. 1001, 6:33–48 (emphases added). We fail to see how each cell 12 transmitting an acknowledgement message during the “poll phase” or each cell 12 receiving a task during the “communication channel” phase implicates adding a co-processor “on a plug-and-play basis,” as required by each of independent claims 1, 6, and 11. Regardless, we do not view the cited disclosure in the specification as limiting the “communication” required by these independent claims to only two-way messaging. Instead, we view the cited disclosure as merely examples of how each cell 12 may communicate with the task pool. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit “has repeatedly ‘cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.’” Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Stated differently, these two examples of transmitting an acknowledgment message and receiving a task in the specification, by themselves, are not enough to prevent a broad interpretation of “communication” that includes, among other things, one-way messaging that does not require a response.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,592,275 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,592,275
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01445 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground because the proposed combinations did not teach adding a co-processor without communication with the controller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Both Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and one or more years of experience in the design and development of parallel or distributed processing systems.” Pet. 11; see also PO Resp. 7. The parties alternatively argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have a master’s degree or similar post-graduate work in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a closely related field, and less design and development experience.” Pet. 11 (citing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 67); see also PO Resp. 7. We adopt the parties’ proposed formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner states that “[f]or the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner construes all terms as having their ordinary and customary meanings.” Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeDenied

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)). Specifically, we stated that “[p]rovided that Patent Owner timely objects to the admissibility of Petitioner’s evidence in accordance with our regulations, we will address such objection at the procedurally appropriate time.” Id. Despite our reminding the parties of the proper procedure for challenging the admissibility of evidence, Patent Owner elected not to do so. Specifically, Patent Owner did not file a timely objection, thereby giving Petitioner an opportunity to supply supplemental evidence to cure the objection. See Pet. Reply 28. Accordingly, Patent Owner forfeited its right to object to evidence, such as AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony, and, as a result, forfeited its request that we exclude the evidence. Instead of following our rules and filing a timely objection, Patent Owner argues in the Response, citing the Federal Rules of Evidence, that we should give limited weight to AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony due to a lack of authenticity. See PO Resp. 8–15. But this is no more than a disguised motion to exclude evidence. Under these circumstances where Patent Owner’s argument is premised on the Federal Rules of Evidence, we see no meaningful difference between excluding the evidence and giving it little weight. Because Petitioner did not file a timely objection to the evidence, we deny Patent Owner’s request to give AppleTalkBook and Dr. Hall-Ellis’ testimony limited weight.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We have reviewed the specific examples cited in Patent Owner’s Response. Even if the specific examples cited by Patent Owner were valid complaints, none of them, either alone or in combination, arise to such a level that we would discount the entirety of Dr. Weissman’s testimony. That does not mean that we found all of the testimony in this proceeding, whether provided by Dr. Weissman or Dr. Nelson, credible. In judging the credibility of experts, we focus on whether the witness offers corroboration and provides opinions that are consistent with the prior art, and the witness’ cross-examination testimony. In our obviousness analysis below, we specially identify the relevant testimony provided by the parties’ declarants that we find to be credible and not credible.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,852,004 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,852,004
• Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01041 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Google did not show claims 1–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–17 unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed multi-step activation involving gliding away.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For Google, Dr. Wobbrock testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Human-Computer Interaction, Symbolic Systems, or related engineering disciplines, and at least two years of experience designing and programming graphical user interfaces,” but that “[r]elevant work experience can substitute for formal education and advanced degree studies could substitute for work experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 49. Testifying for Neonode, Dr. Rosenberg states that for his declaration, he “will apply the same definition of the level of skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” as Dr. Wobbrock. Ex. 2019 ¶ 27. We find Dr. Wobbrock’s uncontested articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’879 patent and the asserted prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:49–61 (stating that the ’879 patent addresses technical problems including “to provide a user-friendly interface . . . on a small handheld computer unit”). Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Google does not propose any explicit claim constructions in its Petition. See Pet. 4. Neonode does not propose any explicit constructions either, but in its Response, Neonode raises a number of claim construction arguments regarding the term gliding . . . away as it appears in limitation 1c, to which Google responds in its Reply. See PO Resp. 31–50, 66–69; Pet. Reply 7–12, 19–21; see also PO Sur-reply 1–10, 19–21. We do not need to construe this term explicitly for our decision, and to the extent we need to interpret this or any other terms, we address the terms below in the context of the prior art. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find Google’s argument unpersuasive.10 Tarpenning’s assignment operation for hotkey 82 is in the nature of a drag-and-drop operation, where the user drags the pen from hotkey 82 to the intended menu item to which hotkey 82 will be assigned. But Google identifies the “function [to be] activated”—not as the actual assignment of hotkey 82 to the menu item when the user lifts from the intended menu item—but as the underlying software process that looks to see whether the user has lifted yet from the selected menu item. See Pet. Reply 19–20; Tr. 37:17–39:16. Essentially, Google asserts that the recited function is part of processing the gesture itself, which we do not find persuasive. As counsel for Neonode argued at the hearing, unless the user lifts off from a menu item, no assignment to hotkey 82 has been made and nothing has actually been done. See Tr. 80:4– 13. 10 We also consider this argument untimely, as it appears to contradict Google’s original theory of obviousness in the Petition, which states that the “‘assignment’ function” is “completed when the user reaches the target item to be assigned.” Pet. 79; see also Tr. 80:2–3 (counsel for Neonode arguing, “I submit that’s not only a new point they’re making, it’s unsupported and . . . incorrect.”); 37 CFR § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response[] or decision on institution.”). We also find unpersuasive Google’s original argument in the Petition that the recited “function” is activated when the user reaches the target menu item being assigned to hotkey 82. See Pet. 79. This is essentially a traditional drag-and-drop operation. But we credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that when the user lifts from the intended menu item, no function has actually been activated. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 139. Rather, at this point a function has merely been assigned to the hotkey for future activation by touching the hotkey. See id. Thus, we determine that Google has not identified any disclosure in Tarpenning in which any “function is activated by a multi-step operation” as recited in limitation 1c. Absent that teaching or suggestion, Google’s argument (Pet. 80–82) does not adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tarpenning’s book menu key 84 or library menu key 86 to achieve limitation 1c, and we find Google’s obviousness argument unpersuasive as to claim 1.” slip op. at 36

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “would have understood Robertson’s “flick” gesture to comprise “gliding . . . away” as we interpret that term. Robertson says very little about the “flick” gestures themselves, other than using the word flick. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 39. Robertson teaches that its gestures should be “easily differentiated,” and in addition to “flick” gestures, Robertson also teaches “drag and drop” operations. Id. at 36 (“[Y]ou can drag a document icon and drop it into a printer icon to print the document . . . .”). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that, for the XButton system to immediately distinguish between dragging and flicking, there must be some distinction between a “flick” and a “drag,” and that the most plausible difference is in terms of their speed, distance, or both. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 90. Although Robertson discloses that its system is capable of recognizing gestures that start on an XButton and extend outside it (see Ex. 1005, 43), a “glide” or that the distinction is arbitrary. Cf. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Descriptive words . . . are commonly used in patent claims, to ‘avoid[] a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995))) the only gesture for which Robertson specifically indicates this would be necessary is a “circling gesture[] for grouping, moving, and copying graphical objects” (id. at 39). Thus, we disagree with Google that Robertson’s teaching in this regard is relevant to what Robertson means by a “flick” gesture. We also find persuasive Neonode’s dictionary definitions, spanning from 1993 to 2012, which consistently indicate that the word flick describes a movement that is “light,” “sharp” or “quick,” and “jerky” or “sudden,” as opposed to definitions of “glide” referring to a movement that is “smooth,” “continuous,” and possibly “quiet” or “effortless.” Exs. 2049, 2050, 2052, 2057.9 And although the evidence postdates Robertson, we find relevant the supporting evidence that modern Apple and Google developers maintain a meaningful distinction between “flick” and “swipe” gestures. See Ex. 2022, 4; Ex. 2023, 6; Ex. 2025, 21; Ex. 2026, 5; Ex. 2029, 2; Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 80–81. We further credit Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion that in the relevant time frame, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted a “flick” gesture as one in which “the pen would touch the screen, but only moves on the screen for a very short distance and is quickly lifted from the screen in a ‘jerky’ motion.” Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 85–86. 9 The earliest dictionary definitions (Ex. 2052) are from 1993, which is roughly contemporary with Robertson (1991), and are sufficiently close in time to be relevant. Google does not present any evidence suggesting that the meaning of flick had changed between 1991 and 1993. See PO Sur-reply 2. Thus, we agree with Neonode that Google has not shown that Robertson’s “flick” gesture comprises “gliding . . . away,” and thus falls within the scope of claim 1. Finally, we also agree with Neonode that Google has not established that Robertson’s “insert” (caret) gesture comprises “gliding . . . away.” Although Robertson does not provide much information about this gesture, we find Dr. Rosenberg’s interpretation and annotated version of Figure 1 (Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 99–102) more credible than those of Dr. Wobbrock (Ex. 1003 ¶ 108). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “insert” gesture to be similar to the way a person would draw a caret to indicate an insertion within existing text. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 99. Thus, we agree it would involve two brief, connected movements with a sharp peak, neither of which would be a continuous gliding or swiping motion. Id. ¶¶ 100–102.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,095,879 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,095,879
• Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00792 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable over Wedekind and Ehlers because the petition did not show the claimed distinct inputs used to determine the start time.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent. Specifically, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Wedekind and Ehlers. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent are unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude the” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Reply: that the first internal temperature is acquired using the setpoint. See Pet. Reply 20. The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that a “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)10 73. Although “a reply . . . may . . . respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief,” “[r]espond . . . does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Id. at 74. As discussed below, we find Petitioner improperly shifted its position in the Reply by advocating a new approach. In the Petition, Petitioner argues that Wedekind teaches “acquiring at least a first internal temperature inside said structure at a third time prior to said target time” by the “continuous measurement of various air temperatures” including the internal temperature inside the structure. Pet. 42 (quoting Ex. 1006, code (57) and citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97). According to Petitioner, “[t]he continuous measurement of temperatures includes measurement of a first a [sic] internal temperature inside said structure at or before time t3 in Fig. 2, which is the third time prior to said target time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 98). Petitioner argues that “[e]ven during times of steady-state temperature, the temperature is being continuously measured to check against the current temperature setpoint.” Id. Nowhere does Petitioner mention acquiring a temperature by using the setpoint 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. temperature as opposed to a measured temperature. See Pet.; PO Sur-reply 9. In its Reply, Petitioner alternatively argues that the claim limitation is satisfied even if Wedekind uses the setback/setpoint11 temperature: Even Wedekind’s parameter Ti, however, would still meet the claim language. EcoFactor principally argues that Ti is not a measured temperature, but rather just a setpoint. A setpoint, according to EcoFactor, is at best a “predict[ion] [of] air temperature at or before time t3”. To this there are three responses. First, EcoFactor simply assumes that the “setback temperature” is a setpoint, but Wedekind refers to it in the relevant passage as “the setback temperature which exists at time, t3”. (Ex. 1006, 19:61)(Emphasis added). The phrase “setback temperature setpoint”, as used by EcoFactor, does not actually occur in Wedekind. Second, even if the setback temperature were a setpoint, the setpoint is a good estimate for the temperature (Ex. 1014, 19:23-21:3), and the claims do not require a measured “first internal temperature”, merely one that is “acquired”. Finally, even if the setback temperature of Wedekind were a predicted temperature, the ’753 patent works in exactly the same way, namely by using a “predicted initial temperature PT” as the temperature at the beginning of the recovery period. (Ex. 1001, 6:17-22)(Ex. 1014, 55:25-58:4). Thus, even if EcoFactor had made an express claim construction argument, the “first internal temperature” would not have been construed to exclude predicted temperatures.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–8 Petitioner contends that the combination of Wedekind and Ehlers would have rendered the subject matter of claims 2–8 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 61–65. Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, recites the “determining a first time prior to said target time . . .” limitation. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency and Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the 13 Petitioner also states that Ehlers teaches the limitation. Pet. 54. The entirety of Petitioner’s statement follows: “Ehlers also teaches this limitation. (Ex. 1008, 29:23-36, 39:44-51, 19:39-40, 37:25-27. 11:53-63, 32:66-33:13, 36:27-38).” Id. Because Petitioner simply states Ehlers teaches the limitation and supplies a string citation without any explanation or supporting testimony, we do not consider Petitioner’s statement regarding Ehlers adequately explained or supported. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[A] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Despite being warned in the Institution Decision that we would not consider such conclusory arguments (Inst. Dec. 16–17 n.10), Petitioner did not argue in its Reply that we should consider it or provide any additional evidence or argument (see Pet. Reply). evidence that claims 2–8 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,753

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.