- PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00059 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 5–9, 15, 16, 19, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with two years of work experience in the field of user interface technologies, including e.g., graphical user interface technologies, or a related field” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20, 21, 22–34). “Patent Owner applies [Petitioner’s] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for the purposes of [its] preliminary response but expressly reserves the right to urge a different definition . . . and support such definition with evidence including expert testimony.” Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Pet. 5–6). Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s as yet undisputed level of ordinary skill to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“displays information selectively” has a meaning broader than Patent Owner’s proposal. In particular, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites: wherein modifying the display of the annunciator window further includes: displaying the changed state across a portion of the annunciator window; and masking at least one icon representing the device status, connectivity status, or messaging status, wherein the first display is on a first screen of the multi-display device, and wherein the second display is on a different second screen of the multi-display device. Ex. 1001, 30:1–9 (emphasis added). Dependent claim 8 and unchallenged dependent claim 12 recite similar limitations. Id. at 30:56–64, 32:8–14. The limitation “masking at least one icon representing the device status, connectivity status, or messaging status” of these dependent claims indicates that “displays information selectively” recited by the independent claims has a meaning broader than Patent Owner’s proposal of “display[ing] information in a way that involves intentionally choosing some information to display and not others.” Prelim. Resp. 7. At this stage, on the preliminary record, we determine that, in view of the language of dependent claims 3, 8, and 12, the phrase “wherein the modified display of the annunciator window displays information selectively across the annunciator window” of the independent claims has a meaning broader than Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Also, on the present record, Petitioner argues sufficiently that Yook’s status bar on screen 140 displays information showing device status and connectivity status. Pet. 33. Furthermore, on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement and pre-configure Yook’s status bar to display dynamically the device status and connectivity status, so that Yook discloses or suggests “wherein the modified display of the annunciator window displays information selectively across the annunciator window.” Id. at 33–36, 38–39. In other words, as we understand the argument, Petitioner associates dynamically updating a status via a status icon with “display[ing] information selectively.” See id. at 38–39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 67. Moreover, even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation for “displays information selectively,” Petitioner’s arguments for dependent claim 3 include contentions that Yook modified by Bauer would have “mask[ed] at least one icon representing the device status, connectivity status, or messaging status.” Pet. 53–55 (citing Ex. 1001, 26:45–50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82, 83; Ex. 1007, 6:14–29, 6:33–42 (describing that “the interactive indicator (e.g., the icon 204 and the corresponding preview) are superimposed over the static indicators” and that “[o]nce the preview intensity of the static indicators may be restored”), 6:47–61, 7:22–27, Fig. 2A). At this preliminary stage, based on the arguments presented for dependent claim 3, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Yook and Bauer would have rendered obvious an annunciator window that “displays information selectively across the annunciator window,” as recited by claim 1, under an interpretation of that limitation meaning “displays information in a way that involves intentionally choosing some information to display and not others,” as proposed by Patent Owner. For the reasons above, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable over Yook.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,141,135 - DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2023-00268 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–10, 16–18, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious over Scott; the Board did not reach the anticipation challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Petitioner states that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). 1 The parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We note that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Vancura, uses essentially the same definition as Petitioner. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 33; Ex. 2007 ¶ 46. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties’ witnesses interpret “fixed odds” to mean the odds/multiplier of the wager is fixed at the time the wager is placed. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 160 (“the wager on a bingo game would be a ‘fixed odds single’ wager when placed because the odds of winning are fixed” (original emphasis omitted, our emphasis added)); Ex. 2007 ¶ 135 (“‘fixed odds’ in the context of a ‘fixed odds single’ [means] a wager where a bettor is offered a multiplier for wagering on a given outcome(s), and where the multiplier and therefore the potential payout are fixed at the time the bettor places their desired wager”). It necessarily follows that the payout for the wager would also be fixed at the time the wager is placed. Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation that “single” means the wager is for the outcome of a single event, as opposed to, for example, a parlay wager that involves the outcomes of multiple events. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 19 (“[an ordinarily skilled artisan] would understand the term ‘fixed odds single’ to refer to a game where ‘the odds of winning are fixed, and the wager is on a single outcome’”). Accordingly, we interpret “fixed odds single” to mean a wager on the outcome of a single event in which the odds/multiplier is fixed at the time the wager is placed. The parties disagree, however, on whether bingo is a fixed odds single wagering event. Dr. Vancura testifies that bingo does not involve a fixed odds single wager because “[b]ingo does not have a ‘fixed odds’ payout — it has a ‘pot’ available to be won, which is either pre-determined by the operator . . . , or more commonly, depends on the number of cards in play wherein part of the purchase price of each card is contributed to a jackpot.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 136. Mr. Crevelt testifies that bingo does involve a fixed odds single wager because all bingo cards have the same chance of winning prior to initiation of the game. Ex. 1007 ¶ 160. Mr. Crevelt does not address meaningfully the fact that the odds of winning at bingo are a function of the number of cards in play—as the number of cards in play increases, the chances that another card first achieves “bingo” increase and the initial player’s chance of winning decreases. Nor does Petitioner explain persuasively how the disclosure of a fixed odds betting terminal in the ’779 patent supports its assertion that bingo is a fixed odds single wager. See Pet. Reply 20. Notably, a reference relied upon by Petitioner explains that fixed odds betting terminals host games other than fixed odds games. See Ex. 1058, 28 (explaining that fixed odds betting terminals “are machines on which can be played fixed odds and betting games”); see also Tr. 23:12–22 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that there has been some scope creep regarding fixed odds betting terminals such that they include games other than fixed odds single wagers). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that bingo is not a fixed odds single wager.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“However, we agree that claim 16 recites a system where multiple participants place wagers on the same wagering event. Claim 16 uses both plural and singular terms, indicating that the recited plural terms refer to a plurality of elements and the recited singular terms refer to a single element. For example, claim 16 recites “receive, by the trading engine module, a plurality of wagers on the wagering event from the plurality of input devices via the communications interface, the plurality of wagers input by a plurality of participants via the user interfaces of respective input devices from the plurality of input devices.” Ex. 1001, 54:11–16. We interpret this language to mean that a single trading engine module receives wagers on a single wagering event from a plurality of participants each using a different input device. Scott discloses “a number of players electronically connected” where one player may sell symbols to “other players.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 96. Scott also discloses various types of games, including games typically played by more than one player. See, e.g., id. ¶ 44 (disclosing “Class II” games, keno, lottery, bingo). Thus, Scott at least suggests a system where multiple participants engage in the same game. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to use Scott’s gaming machine in a multiplayer environment. Mr. Crevelt testifies that “it is an obvious matter of common sense to take a system that can be for use by one player and put it to use for multiple players” and “if one player is able to utilize Scott’s system described above in accordance [with] claim 1, but multiple players wanted to play, common sense dictates that such systems should be reproduced for multiple players.” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 183–184. We agree, especially given Scott’s strong suggestion that its system may be used to host multiplayer games as noted above. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing, as it is not clear to us, and Patent Owner has not explained adequately, how reproducing Scott’s system for multiple players, as proposed by Petitioner, would not result in a multiplayer wagering system.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s obviousness rationales are supported by rational underpinning. Petitioner correctly notes that Scott discloses that its memory devices “may utilize various storage technologies to accomplish data storage and retrieval.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Pet. 84 (citing same). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that, given the widespread use of databases to store data in computer systems and computerized gaming systems in particular, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to store Scott’s player tracking account data as records in a database. See Pet. 84–85 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:19–26, 26:29–32; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 96; Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Ex. 1007 ¶ 92); see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 103 (Dr. Vancura testifying that, in his experience, “player tracking systems store a player’s wagering information”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Scott and Mr. Crevelt’s testimony support Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 11,200,779 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,200,779 - PTAB · Mar 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01407 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claim 26 on the Shell and Cole §103 ground, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination renders the claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering these disclosures together with the cited paragraphs of Petitioner’s declaration, Petitioner sufficiently shows on the present record that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in Shell, when a user attempts a voice call, the user can cause a current data connection to disconnect, because (1) a voice-related connection request will be made, (2) the request for voice connection will be prioritized over data requests, and (3) the request will also be prioritized if it is coming from an active application rather than an application running in the background. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. On the preliminary record, the relied-upon portions of Shell adequately show a determination of whether an application is an active application for prioritization purposes and disconnecting a current data connection due to a user attempting to make a voice call. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. The attempt to make a voice call would be a user interaction resulting in a request for a voice connection that would be prioritized over the data request of another application using the current data connection. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. The attempt to make a voice call also involves a user interacting with an application to make it an active background. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Petitioner, thus, sufficiently shows for institution that Shell’s processor is “configured to determine that the different application is an active application based on a user interaction with the different application,” as required by claim 26. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“One of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner argues, would have, thus, been motivated to look to references, such as Cole, that provided mobile devices with network access while addressing cost, power, and network selection. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶¶ 14–15, 78, 83, 88, 98). Petitioner also argues that Cole describes Internet access control techniques based on conditions, such as power state change and load on current communication links, and that applying Cole to Shell would have “promoted more efficient communications and network access connectivity.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 83, 98). Using Cole’s techniques, the proposed combination, Petitioner explains, would have evaluated network and power conditions, determined whether to apply an Internet access control, evaluated further conditions, such as whether the application is running in the foreground or background, and then determined the priority of packets traveling over the selected network. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 11, 78, 83, 88, 98). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated Cole’s communication manager 260 into Shell’s connection manager modules 210 and would have incorporated Cole’s connections.” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex. 1005 ¶ 32, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006 ¶ 31). Petitioner further argues that the proposed combination would have included the processors, non-transitory memory, and display, as taught by both references, to perform the recited operations. Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38–44, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 34, 40, Fig. 2). Petitioner additionally argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it “would have required only routine programming knowledge well within [ordinary] skill,” “would have amounted to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices . . . in a similar way,” and would have been “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 40; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 34, 35, Fig. 2).” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner’s declarant opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in services and application implementation in communication networks.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 15. The declarant also opines that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. “For purposes of [its] Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not challenge that definition.” Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Pet. 13 n.2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 15); see also Ex. 2010 ¶ 27 (stating “[f]or purposes of . . . my analysis, I do not disagree with this proposed level of skill in the art”). Based on the” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,179,359 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01337 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–30 on all presented grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that the Jobs, Jones, and Rao combination renders at least claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications security.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 24. The declarant also opines that “[a]dditional advanced education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” Id. As noted above, Patent Owner has not yet responded. Based on the record at this stage, we preliminarily adopt the level of ordinary skill provided by Petitioner’s declarant to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“several “means for” performing functions without reciting structure and, thus, those limitations should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 165:20–38). Petitioner also contends that the ’110 patent describes a device with a processor, service processor 115 being implemented on the processor, and the implementation being accomplished (citing Ex. 1001, 26:43–37:2, Figs. 9–15). According to Petitioner, “[s]ince the service processor is implemented on the processor, the corresponding structure for each of the ‘means for’ elements is a processor configured to perform respective algorithm steps for the recited function corresponding to each element.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner specifically asserts with citations to the record the functions and corresponding structures for each of the “means for” limitations. Pet. 5– 11. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretations. In particular, regarding “means for obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy” and “the corresponding structure includes a [user interface (UI)] and a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of providing the user with information and accepting user choices or preferences on, e.g., service plan selection or change, and/or other service related information, settings, and/or options.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:15–29, 28:41–48, 65:41–51, Fig. 42D; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In particular, regarding “means for obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “obtaining, through a user interface of the wireless device, a user input specifying at least an aspect of a first service policy” and “the corresponding structure includes a [user interface (UI)] and a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of providing the user with information and accepting user choices or preferences on, e.g., service plan selection or change, and/or other service related information, settings, and/or options.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:15–29, 28:41–48, 65:41–51, Fig. 42D; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Regarding “means for identifying that the wireless device is connected to the first wireless network,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “identifying that the wireless device is connected to the first wireless network” and “the corresponding structure includes a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of recognizing the type of network to which the device is currently connecting, e.g., by looking up the 51:4–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–59). Regarding “means for identifying an intended, attempted, or successful data communication over the first wireless network, the intended, attempted, or successful data communication being associated with the first service activity,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “identifying an intended, attempted, or successful data communication over the first wireless network, the intended, attempted, or successful data communication being associated with the first service activity” and “the corresponding structure includes a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of implementing traffic inspection points between the applications and the networking stack application interface using a T-buffer at socket connections and feeding the side traffic into a traffic flow analyzer.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 29:10–32, 53:51–55, 53:58–63, Fig. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–64). Regarding “means for applying the first service policy,” we preliminarily agree that the function is “applying the first service policy” and “the corresponding structure includes a processor configured to perform the algorithm steps of performing a service control that reduces traffic speed for all applications and traffic types successively until the service usage projections are within service usage limits for the present service billing period.” Pet. 9–11 (citing Ex. 1001, 43:38–49:1, Fig. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65– 68).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,588,110 - Ubiquiti Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01290 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“interview to incorporate prosecution dependent claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and cancel prosecution dependent claim 3. See § I.F, supra. We determine that this agreement and the corresponding amendment constitutes a clear disavowal of subject matter that supports Patent Owner’s construction. Prosecution claim 2 required that the second communication frame follow the first communication frame after a SIFS (corresponding to Figure 5 of the ’122 patent), while prosecution claim 3 required that there be a SIFS and an intervening response between the first and second communication frames (corresponding to the embodiments of Figures 3 and 4 of the ’122 patent). Before the amendment, original claim 1 included both of these embodiments, but the incorporation of prosecution claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and the cancellation of prosecution claim 3 limited issued claim 1 to only the embodiment of prosecution claim 2. Because Larsson disclosed an intervening response to the first communication frame before the second communication frame, the clear import of the amendment was to limit claim 1 to the embodiment where the second communication frame follows immediately after the SIFS in order to distinguish claim 1 from Larsson. Indeed, in the Reasons for Allowance, the examiner explained that claim 1 distinguishes over the prior art (including Larsson) because “[t]he prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest ‘receiv[ing] the second communication frame after a short inter frame space (SIFS) that follows the first communication frame,’” as added from prosecution claim 2. Ex. 1002, 47. If, as Petitioner argues, prosecution claim 2 was broad enough to cover the embodiment of prosecution claim 3, then the amendment would have served no apparent purpose. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]here is no other plausible explanation for why, when faced with Larsson’s disclosure of an intervening response, the Examiner initiated an interview to incorporate the SIFS limitation of dependent claim 2 into claim 1, and cancel dependent claim 3, which, like Larsson, included an intervening response.” See Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“of the alleged invention would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications standards and/or product development.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–26). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not advance a proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Sur-reply. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’122 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that Gu teaches that “the second communication frame follows after a short inter frame space (SIFS) after the first communication frame with the transmit announcement indication.” Ex. 1001, 7:64–67. As discussed above, we construe this limitation to require that “the second communication frame follows substantially immediately after the first communication frame (without any intervening response to the first communication frame),” as Patent Owner proposes. See § II.A, supra. Petitioner has not shown that Gu meets this construction because Gu includes an intervening response between the first and second communication frames. Consequently, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Gu and Trainin.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on any grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,122 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01181 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been shown obvious over Rao and Scahill.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“accessible to each of the plurality of executable applications, the API callable by each of the executable applications to request an execution time according to the corresponding network access policy controls for that application.” Ex. 1001, 107:41–45. Petitioner argues that Scahill teaches that limitation and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Rao and Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 13–19, 24–27; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–72, 81–85. After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which are not addressed by Patent Owner at this stage, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that Scahill teaches that limitation and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the Rao and Scahill with a reasonable expectation of success. Our specific preliminary findings are set forth below.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) held at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) had three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner further argues that “[m]ore related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is not disputed and consistent with the invention claimed in the ’700 patent.7” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts “no terms need to be expressly construed.” Pet. 4. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.8 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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,749,700 - PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01180 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable, chiefly because Rao did not teach blocking network access.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) held at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) had three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner further argues that “[m]ore related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner “does not challenge the Petition’s proposed definition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is not disputed and consistent with the invention claimed in the ’076 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that the term “disallow[]” should be given the same construction the parties agreed upon during the district court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain where Rao teaches “allow[ing] or disallow[ing]” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–18, 25–30. To the extent Petitioner and Dr. Bims cite to Rao, they reference paragraphs 191 through 193, which discuss how Rao’s filter 322 is used to implement prioritization. See Pet. 15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65. More specifically, those paragraphs recite using prioritization to place the network packets in different queues based on their priority. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 191–193. We see nothing in Rao that teaches or suggest that the network packets would be disallowed, as opposed to simply delayed, based on priority. Id. And, as Patent Owner argues, this finding is consistent with factual findings made by a different panel considering the teachings of Rao in an inter partes review of a related patent. See Prelim. Resp. 16–18 (citing Samsung Elecs. Co v. Headwater Research LLC, IPR2023-01361, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2024) (Decision Denying Institution)). Even if one reads the Petition as arguing that a person having ordinary skill would have modified Rao to include Araujo’s blocking—which we do not—we would not be sufficiently persuaded by that argument. Although Petitioner explains why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want to consider power usage along with whether the application is in the foreground or background, Petitioner does not explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have changed prioritization to blocking. See Pet. 13–18. Indeed, such a modification appears to be one that would render Rao “inoperable for its intended purpose.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,076 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00124 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–14, and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Neufeld.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2024). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’140 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or network design and security or other relevant industry experience,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶ 54). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 7–8. We view this and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that the “said managed network element,” as recited in claim 1 means “said managed network device.” Pet. 9. At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for this term as it appears to be consistent with the Specification’s use of “element” as referring to networked devices, and with the overall claim. See generally Ex. 1002.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner does not explain why we should adopt its proposed constructions for these means-plus-function terms. Rather, Petitioner states that it adopts the district court’s constructions for these terms from a related district court litigation. Id. at 9. We note, however, the following guidance for proceedings before the Board as it relates to claim construction: The Board will determine the claim construction based on the record of the proceeding at issue. Thus, as in a district court proceeding, the parties should point out the specific portions of the specification, prosecution history, and relevant extrinsic evidence they want considered, and explain the relevancy of any such evidence to the arguments they advance. Each party bears the burden of providing sufficient support for any construction advanced by that party. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)10 (“CTPG”) 46. Patent Owner does not set forth any term for construction, nor address Petitioner’s construction arguments. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these means-plus-function terms. Petitioner sufficiently identifies the recited functions and the specific portions of the specification corresponding to each recited function. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). And these proposed constructions are undisputed, at this stage. In addition, we consider the Construction Order from the related district court litigation, but we note that it provides no reasoning for why the terms were construed as they were. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Ex. 1042 (Claim Construction Order), 1 (“This order memorializes the Court’s final constructions of the disputed terms in this” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,325,140 - PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00109 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Neufeld.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2024). Upon consideration of the papers, we conclude that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’016 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or network design and security or other relevant industry experience,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 6. We view this definition for the level of ordinary skill as consistent with the ’016 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms for purposes of our Decision on Institution, and we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“At this stage, we find that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support combining Neufeld and PCI Bridge Spec’s teachings in the manner Petitioner does. See that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that the local bus 166 could have been implemented as a PCI bus” in light of Neufeld’s teaching that “[t]he implementation details of the internal local bus 166 are a matter of design choice.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 56; Pet. 39. And we credit Dr. Meldal’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that a PCI bus would have been acceptable for the relatively (with respect to, e.g., the front side bus for Neufeld’s CPU 3) low bandwidth that would be necessary for Neufeld’s remote management controller 116.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 134. The bus leading to the remote management controller 116 (the PCI bus 16/PCI bus 172) being a PCI bus supports the acceptability of using a PCI bus for the internal local bus 166. Id.; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem [(i.e., choosing a bus protocol)] and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, [(i.e., a finite number of known protocols)] a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”). At this stage, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that “there is no need for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to look elsewhere for guidance on implementing Neufeld’s ATB 170 as a bridge to the local bus 166” because Neufeld teaches that the implementation details of the internal local bus 166 are a matter of design choice. Prelim. Resp. 48. Rather, as we discuss above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the internal local bus 166 to constitute a PCI bus, and as such would have having a bridge (the ATB unit 170) between two PCI buses. Moreover, PCI Bridge Spec also evidences the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that we appropriately consider as part of our obviousness analysis. Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1362–63. Thus, when one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ a PCI bus for the internal local bus 166, the knowledge of also needing a controller should be considered. See id.; Ex. 1008, 109 (“Every bus segment in a PCI system requires an arbiter. Since a bridge creates a new bus segment, it is anticipated that an arbiter will be a common bridge feature.”); cf. Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding obviousness can rely on supported expert testimony that an element “was not only in the prior art, but also within the general knowledge of a skilled artisan”).” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,474,016 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01226 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Lenovo had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“identifies and refers to a valid region of the integrated circuit memory device as having a three-dimensional boundary delimited by phase ranges in command/address signals, data signals, and sampling signals. Nowhere does the ’835 patent specification indicate a valid region of the integrated circuit device as a whole can be represented by values for less than three parameters x, y, and z, all together, e.g., the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Also, the ’835 patent describes that the purpose of determining the boundaries of a valid region is to configure an optimal operating point for the integrated circuit device. Ex. 1001, 5:48–51. We have also considered other language in the claims. Each of independent claims 1 and 7 requires adjustment of the phase of all three command signals, data signals, and sampling signals, to determine the “valid operation range.” Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:4, 7:18–34. Each of independent claims 12, 20, and 23 requires adjustment of the phase of all three command signals, data signals, and sampling signals, to determine the “valid operating range.” Ex. 1001, 7:46–60, 8:28–44, 8:62–10:4. Based on the foregoing, the specification informs us that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range. We recognize that the specification does not expressly exclude a two-dimensional range or multiple two-dimensional ranges from being a “valid operation range” of the integrated circuit device. However, that is why we construe the claims to determine what, if anything, may be required despite a lack of express recitation in the claims.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Baker, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter “POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two to three years of experience designing high speed computer memory devices.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–35). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Lee, testifies: “I agree with Petitioner that [Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill] would be the minimum qualifications for a POSITA.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two to three years of experience designing high speed computer memory devices.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 34. The stated level is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker and not disputed by Patent Owner. Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). C.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petitioner still has not made a sufficient showing for limitation [1.4.a]. That is because Petitioner has, at best, identified only two 2-parameter valid operation ranges, i.e., an operation range involving just command and sampling signals, and an operation range involving data and sampling signals. Pet. 29–34. This does not satisfy “valid operation range” as we have construed above in Section III.C. Specifically, we determined that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range including a boundary for each of three underlying parameters which, for example, may be the phases of the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Nowhere has Petitioner identified or explained how Johnson discloses a valid operation range that is a function of three parameters together, e.g., the respective phases of command signals, data signals, and sampling signals. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner’s reasoning for adjusting the phase of clock signals DCLK, which Petitioner regards as sampling signals, to synchronize with the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus is unpersuasive, because Johnson, as Petitioner has recognized, already adjusts the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus to synchronize with clock signals DCLK. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136; Ex. 1004, 4:55–59, 6:46–48, 7:25–31, 7:36–42). The proposed adjustment is redundant and serves little, if any purpose. Petitioner has not proposed to stop adjusting the data signals relative to DCLK. Nor has Petitioner articulated a reason to do the adjustment in both directions, i.e., adjusting the data signals relative to the sampling signals and adjusting the sampling signals relative to the data signals. We have also determined above, in discussing limitation [1.3], that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Johnson’s CCLK signal is a sampling signal. Further, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 24) that neither delay 55 nor delay lock loop 41 in Johnson’s Figure 4 is used for systematic calibration of any signal or in a signal calibration process. We find that the mere presence of a delay element in a signal path does not reasonably suggest systematic calibration. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“Petitioner still has not made a sufficient showing for limitation [1.4.a]. That is because Petitioner has, at best, identified only two 2-parameter valid operation ranges, i.e., an operation range involving just command and sampling signals, and an operation range involving data and sampling signals. Pet. 29–34. This does not satisfy “valid operation range” as we have construed above in Section III.C. Specifically, we determined that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range including a boundary for each of three underlying parameters which, for example, may be the phases of the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Nowhere has Petitioner identified or explained how Johnson discloses a valid operation range that is a function of three parameters together, e.g., the respective phases of command signals, data signals, and sampling signals. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner’s reasoning for adjusting the phase of clock signals DCLK, which Petitioner regards as sampling signals, to synchronize with the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus is unpersuasive, because Johnson, as Petitioner has recognized, already adjusts the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus to synchronize with clock signals DCLK. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136; Ex. 1004, 4:55–59, 6:46–48, 7:25–31, 7:36–42). The proposed adjustment is redundant and serves little, if any purpose. Petitioner has not proposed to stop adjusting the data signals relative to DCLK. Nor has Petitioner articulated a reason to do the adjustment in both directions, i.e., adjusting the data signals relative to the sampling signals and adjusting the sampling signals relative to the data signals. We have also determined above, in discussing limitation [1.3], that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Johnson’s CCLK signal is a sampling signal. Further, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 24) that neither delay 55 nor delay lock loop 41 in Johnson’s Figure 4 is used for systematic calibration of any signal or in a signal calibration process. We find that the mere presence of a delay element in a signal path does not reasonably suggest systematic calibration. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,646,835
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.