- PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00742 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 6-10, 14, 17, 24-28, and 30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’243 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“portable device 100 as “portable” even when components of that “device” are integrated in a “non-portable” device, such as a car. Examples of such portable devices are provided as wireless telephones, PDAs, laptops; handheld devices, and music players. Ex. 1009 ¶ 22; See Ex. 1001, 4:22−28 (describing a visor as a portable gaming system); 7:21−27 (listing additionally Blackberries, Personal Electronic Devices, IPODs and any other portable electronic device, to be configured as a gaming system). Taking these disclosures together, the ’243 patent does not define the degree of the “portability” of the claimed device to require that the “portable device” must be completely “free of encumbering external connections.” If “portability” can include integrating a component of the “portable device” into a “non-portable device,” then there is support for holding that the recited “portable device” could be tethered to a non-portable device.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“rotation sensors are found not to be positioned on Levesque’s display, it would have been obvious to do so in light of Ronzani because Ronzani teaches equipping the head-mounted device with external and internal sensors). Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding motivation to combine amount to showing that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The inquiry at this juncture is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan is “able to recognize, based on her background knowledge, [a technique’s] potential to improve the device and be able to apply the technique.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artInstituted
“A reference that is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention is analogous art,5 and such a qualification means that one of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to have been aware of the reference and thus the refence properly may be considered if it predates the claimed invention. See Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that the field of endeavor of the claims of the ’243 patent is “the field of portable user-worn devices for providing location based-entertainment.” Pet. 19−20. According to that description of the relevant field of endeavor, Petitioner argues that both Levesque and Ronzani are analogous to the ’243 patent. Id. Patent Owner appears to argue that the field of endeavor is “video games.” Prelim. Resp. 29−30. This is not the correct field of endeavor because although the claim recites a location based game system, the claims considerably focus on the head-mounted device. Indeed, for claim 1 all the structural elements claimed involve or are placed in the head-mounted device. Thus, “video games” generally is not an appropriate field of endeavor, as it is too broad and ignores the significant focus of the claims of the ’243 patent. Petitioner’s statement of the field of endeavor is, therefore, more indicative of the correct field of endeavor involved here. And as such, it is unpersuasive to argue that Ronzani does not belong to the field merely because it is not solely focused on video” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,904,243 - Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00573 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7 or 11 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’772 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 7 and 11 of the ’772 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) pertaining to the ’772 patent “would have had an educational background of, engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems.” Pet. 19–20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26. “Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. generally. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’772 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In this inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We do not need to construe any terms expressly to determine whether or not to institute a trial. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,481,772 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00741 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of the ’493 patent on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contentions of obviousness for claim 1 of the ’559 patent and claim 1 of the ’493 patent.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,376,493 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00740 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of both patents on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of each patent is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated in this Decision, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’559 patent and at least one claim of the ’493 patent are unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the instant Petitions. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill, would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a 2 US Patent No. 6,166,744, issued Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 US Patent No. 6,369,952 B1, issued Apr. 9, 2002 (Ex. 1004). 4 WO 03/107039 A2, published Dec. 24, 2003 (Ex. 1008). 5 US Patent Application US 2002/0163486 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1009). person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. 740 Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21−25); 741 Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“At this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Paper 10 in the 740 IPR; and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply, filed as Paper 11 in the 740 IPR. Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Ex. 1001, 2:38−40, 2:63–3:2, 3:23–25, 6:11−13, 6:46−48, 8:48– 62, 9:23–28, 20:28−58, 22:1−4. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (740 Ex. 1001, 1:58−60), which indicates that applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined, or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” 740 Ex. 1001, 11:12−14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing a physical playfield with defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a physical playfield with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We, therefore, agree at this juncture with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis, and note that the alleged goal of improving the safety in virtual reality gaming does not support Patent Owner’s construction.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Second, Petitioner’s explanation of its alternative theory—that Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,828,559 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00737 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, and 17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Meta would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . 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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, and 17 of the ’476 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes revisions to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application claiming priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. 2 US Patent No. 6,166,744 issued Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 Wayne Piekarski et al., “Integrating Virtual and Augmented Realities in an Outdoor Application,” Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Reality (1999) (Ex. 1004). 4 US Patent No. 6,361,438 B1 issued Mar. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006). 5 US Patent No. 6,951,515 B2 issued Oct. 4, 2005 (Ex. 1005). 6 US Publ. No. 2004/0002843 A1 published Jan. 1, 2004 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 01/42809 A2 published June 14, 2001 (Ex. 1008). and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.) Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner, at this stage, does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally, Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” Ex. 1001, 21:6– 7; 22:26–27. The Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Id. at 2:32–36, 2:55–61, 3:14–16, 5:63–65, 6:30– 32, 8:30–44, 9:4–9, 19:60–20:22, 22:5–6. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (Ex. 1001, 1:51–53), which indicates that applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined, or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” Ex. 1001, 10:58–61. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a “physical playfield” with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We, therefore, agree at this juncture with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis, and note that the alleged goal of improving the safety in virtual reality gaming does not support Patent Owner’s construction. Paper 10, 2 (Petitioner arguing that by describing an augmented reality system where a user can view the physical surroundings, a “bounded” physical playfield is not necessary). Further, we find unpersuasive, at this juncture, Patent Owner’s arguments related to embodiments of how the information about the playfield is captured and stored to construct the playfield and perform scaling. Prelim. Resp. 7−13. As Petitioner notes, and we agree, none of these features are recited in the independent claims. Paper 10, 2. And, to the extent there is a distinction between being “on” or “off” the “physical playfield” as Patent Owner argues, the claim language requires no such determination or detection.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“physical playfield” as properly construed. Prelim. Resp. 30. As discussed in our claim construction above, we are not persuaded that the claim term “physical playfield” is limited to a bounded physical play space. However, even under the Patent Owner’s proposed narrower construction, we are sufficiently persuaded that the combination teaches a bounded physical play space. Jaszlics discloses that its system creates virtual elements in theme parks and entertainment-oriented environments. Ex. 1003, 2:14–16, 2:67– 3:1; see id. at 18:48–55. We are sufficiently persuaded that a theme park is a bounded physical play space. In addition, Jaszlics discloses training armored vehicle crews by using both virtual vehicles and actual vehicles moving over real terrain. Ex. 1003, 1:38–60. We are sufficiently persuaded that a skilled artisan would have envisioned that such training occurs on a military base, which is bounded.8 Jaszlics further discloses that its training field includes boundary markers. Ex. 1003, Fig. 15, 10:1–9. We are sufficiently persuaded that the tank training field of Jaszlics, which has boundary markers and is located on a military base, is a bounded physical play space. Therefore, even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction, we are sufficiently persuaded that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that a user would have played at least some of the video games provided by the combined system of Jaszlics and Piekarski in a bounded physical play space such as a theme park or a military base. slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,585,476 - PTAB · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Remand
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Nishida-based challenges.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 B2 (“the ’749 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–21 of the ’749 patent. Nike, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 13). We discretionarily denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Paper 20. Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision denying institution. Paper 21. Director Review was granted, the Decision denying institution of inter partes review was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Board. Id. at 4. Specifically, the case was “remanded to the Board with instructions to consider Petitioner’s Nishida grounds and to determine whether the Petition should be instituted.” Id. at 3–4.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’749” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In support of Petitioner’s position, Dr. Adanur testifies that “Nishida discloses that the unfinished surface area 1.1 is part of the web 1 itself,” that Nishida discloses that the computer-controlled process can (using Nishida’s phrase) “put in” up to seven different textile fibers or yarns into the web of material in one operation, and that, “[t]hus, Nishida discloses simultaneously knitting its layouts 2 and tongue 40 (each a ‘textile element’) with the unfinished surface area 1.1 (a ‘surrounding textile structure’).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 216 (citing Ex. 1022, 2:12–20, 4:47–55, 5:45–49). For purposes of institution, we credit that testimony over the testimony of Dr. Pastore, because, on the current record, we regard Dr. Adanur’s testimony as more consistent with the evidence. This and the other related issues may be explored more fully during the trial.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’749 patent in March 2004 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Nike applies Skechers’ definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00388 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Wang and Wang with AESO did not establish the claimed analysis, and Cooley did not disclose reducing current power consumption.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the claims require a decision engine to perform those elements.” Tr. 48:17– 20. In light of this, we fail to understand the basis for Patent Owner’s objection to the characterization of the level of ordinary skill involving experience with “intelligent” techniques or devices that control grid electricity. We determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner (PO Resp. 12, 49–50) points to the Specification’s list of “[e]xamples of power reduction actions.” Ex. 1001, 8:47–63. Patent Owner asserts that the list includes numerous examples of power reductions that occur in the present and one that takes place in the future—namely, “scheduling nonessential operations at a different time (e.g., nonessential software or hardware upgrades).” Ex. 1001, 8:61–62 (cited at PO Resp. 12, 50). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention (PO Resp. 12) that the applicant, by including the term “current” in the claims, intentionally narrowed the claims to power consumption reductions that occur temporally in the present, rather than those that occur in the future. See Pet. Reply 6–7 (Petitioner asserting that Patent Owner’s position is “inconsistent with the specification’s examples,” but then arguing that the Specification does not support that position rather than pointing to any purported inconsistencies). Because the independent claims recite the term “current,” construing the term in the temporal sense is not, as Petitioner argues, importing into the claims an example from the Specification. See Pet. Reply 8.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Given the interchangeable nature taught for various features of Wang’s embodiments, it would have been a routine and obvious matter for a POSA to combine aspects from Wang’s various embodiments (e.g., data acquisition, internal hardware, data analysis performed by the UMC receiver 400 and/or the display 200). Moreover, many of Wang’s embodiments–particularly of specific smart appliance types– include common components, thus further confirming combinability of aspects of the disclosed embodiments. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining features of the embodiments together. Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 201–203). We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,291,243 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,291,243 - Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–21 under Nishida grounds and claims 11 and 21 also over Nishida with Zuckerman; Zuckerman-only grounds fail for lack of a surrounding structure.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering, mechanical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear. Ex.1003, ¶¶34-37. For individuals with different educational backgrounds, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above. Id., ¶37. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 13. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Id. at 99:12–25. Dr. Brookstein stated during his deposition that he has “49 years of experience of teaching textile engineering.” Id. at 97:6–8. We credit Dr. Brookstein’s testimony over that of Dr. Pastore’s because it is consistent with the reference and based on decades of experience in the textile field. Nishida’s claim 1 states that, “during the production of the material web (1), [shoe patterns] . . . are produced by . . . a textile production method within the material web.” Ex. 1005, 9. We find that Nishida’s claim language discloses the recited, “simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure.”” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We find the District Court’s reasoning persuasive, and we, like the District Court, decline to adopt Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction. However, for purposes of deciding the dispositive fact issue before us, we need not determine the precise boundaries of “surrounding textile structure,” for example whether it completely or mostly encircles the textile element, and if “mostly,” what percentage of encircling is required. See Pet. Reply 2 (Petitioner characterizing Patent Owner’s position as “mostly” means over 50%); id. at 4 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that the “surrounding” need not be complete, i.e., 100%); PO Sur-reply 3–4 (Patent Owner arguing that “Zuckerman’s textile structures . . . each abut only about 25% of the periphery of Zuckerman’s blank.”). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the portion of Zuckerman’s strip 13 in purple to surround the green blank 11 (textile element) under any reasonable construction of “surrounding textile structure.” Dr. Pastore testifies that “Zuckerman discloses two separate textile structures adjacent the blank—one on each side . . . they abut only two sides of Zuckerman’s blank, with each structure abutting only about a quarter of the blank’s periphery,” and opines that “a POSITA would not have understood these two separate structures, designated by purple in the figure above, to be a textile structure ‘surrounding’ the blank [shown in green].” Ex. 2003 ¶ 54. We find Dr. Pastore’s tesimony credible as it is consistent with Zuckerman’s Figure and with the plain and ordinary meaning of “surrounding” and with the Specification of the ’749 patent (particularly Figure 9). Dr. Brookstein’s testimony, on the other hand, is based on Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction—that any part of a textile area that is not a textile element is “surrounding textile structure”—” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00387 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 over Kimura; claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16 over Kimura and Hotta; claims 3, 10, and 17 over Kimura and King.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We understand Petitioner’s phrase “experience working on software and/or hardware used to manage charging processes for electric vehicles” to encompass data processing systems similar to that proposed by Patent Owner, but with a slightly narrower area of application. We determine that Petitioner’s definition, as set out in the block quote above, is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For the purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, as block quoted above, of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same. Cf. Pet. Reply 15 (Petitioner asserting that “[Patent Owner] takes issue with the level of ordinary skill in the art . . ., but never argues that the level impacts how the Board should understand the arguments. Petitioner’s positions apply regardless.”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that the Specification evidences a clear intent by the patentees to redefine (either explicitly or by implication) or to otherwise narrow the scope of the claim terms “request” and “response,” as Patent Owner urges. The statements in the Specification upon which Patent Owner relies are referring to “Request 414” and “Response 418.” See PO Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:3–4, 12:12–14). As indicated by the reference numbers, the Specification is discussing a specific request and a specific response in the context of Figure 4, which is described as depicting “an illustrative embodiment.” See Ex. 1001, 10:51–53 (“FIG. 4 is a system for managing a charging process of an electric vehicle in accordance with an illustrative embodiment.”), 12:1–19, Fig. 4. By stressing the illustrative nature of the embodiment of Figure 4, the patentees indicated an intent for it to not be limiting. See also Ex. 1001, 15:44–47 (the Specification stating: “The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed.”); Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1373 (“[T]hose terms [including, datalink 39] are used synonymously only in describing a particular numbered component in the figure depicting the preferred embodiment, and never in describing the datalink of the invention generally.”). At oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel, relying on the opinion of Dr. Cameron, argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “read the definition without the reference numbers.” Tr. 43:23–44:9. Thus, we understand Patent Owner to argue that the Specification provides an explicit definition when one reads out a portion of the Specification—converting, for example, “Request 414 is a message” to “Request is a message.” This is not persuasive as it involves editing the evidence to conform to Patent Owner’s argument, rather than an argument supported by the Specification as written by the patentees. Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that clearly defines “request” and “response” generally or, for example, uses phrasing implying that those terms are defined for “the present invention.” See, e.g., Hill-Rom Services, Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (“For example, we have held that disclaimer applies when the patentee makes statements such as “the present invention requires . . .’ or ‘the present invention is . . .’ or ‘all embodiments of the present invention are . . . .’”); Astrazeneca, 384 F.3d at 1339 (discussing defining by implication and determining that the “specification’s statement that ‘[t]he solubilizers suitable according to the invention are defined below’ provides a strong signal of lexicography.”).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We fail to discern a clear disparagement of the use of signals in the Specification that would justify excluding signals from the scope of the claimed invention. The Specification does not mention in these excerpts the use of signals, and thus does not characterize “using signals as less ‘complete, flexible, and interoperable,’” as Patent Owner impliedly argues. PO Sur-reply 11. The Specification characterizes “the most rudimentary charging scenarios” as including situations such as a car owner merely plugging the electric vehicle into a common electric outlet at the owner’s house, and suggests that illustrative embodiments are an improvement in that they apply to “much broader and more complex sets of circumstances than this simple scenario.” See Ex. 1001, 6:60–7:2. An example of a “complex transaction[]” is the car owner using a charging station located away from the owner’s house and being required to pay for the charge. See id. at 7:2– 11. To the extent there is any disparagement, it is merely of the simple scenario of the owner plugging the car into the standard household outlet. Cf. Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ([T]his court also recognizes that disparaging comments alone do not necessarily show a manifest or express disavowal of the criticized subject matter.”). Additionally, Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that indicates, for example, that the use of messages is a very important feature of the claimed invention and that alternatives (e.g., signals) are disparaged. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (citing Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L., 450 F.3d at 1354–55); see id. at 1377 (holding that there is no disavowal or lexicography where “[t]here is no language that extolls the virtues of interfaces that both send and receive messages or language that disparages interfaces that only send messages.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Sur-reply 15 (citing Ex. 1021, 161:5–21). Patent Owner overstates that testimony, which is that “[t]here’s actually disincentive for using messages all together.” Ex. 1021, 161:17–18. Regardless, even if correct, the existence of some disincentives does not necessarily negate a motivation to make the proposed combination. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). We find that Petitioner’s assertion—that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by a desire to assure a safe and commercially-desirable system (Pet. 53)—to have rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner argues that Dr. Cameron “explained [that] . . . it would not be simple because Hotta uses two-stage charging subroutines.” PO Sur-reply 16 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 118). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Cameron’s testimony. The cited paragraph 118 states that Hotta’s figures depict “two-stage charging subroutines different from both the ’391 patent and Kimura,” and that there are “fundamental differences.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 118. Dr. Cameron does not go so far as to opine that combining the teachings as Petitioner’s proposes would not be considered simple by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Leapfrog presents no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this type of device was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”). Dr. MacCarley, on the other hand, credibly testifies that “making use of Hotta’s command keys in Kimura’s system . . . would have been a simple substitution of one known element (Kimura’s lightly- described main switch) for another known element (Hotta’s command keys) to achieve predictable results (a charging process that can be stopped by pressing Hotta’s charging stop command key . . .).” Ex. 1009 ¶ 147. We credit Dr. MacCarley’s testimony over that of Dr. Cameron’s because it is consistent with a sufficiently reasoned rationale of a simple substitution and is supported by the references.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 8,103,391 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,103,391 - Abbott Laboratories / Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Altivera LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00425 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Beck, Heller, and Lovejoy; the Board did not reach the alternative Bandy grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. See generally PO Resp. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’307 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“both the unique sensor ID as well as the associated unique wireless device ID is contradicted, or at least unsupported, by the claim language and the Specification. We determine that this limitation does not require authentication of both the unique sensor ID and the unique wireless device ID, or otherwise require authentication using the unique wireless ID. Rather, the limitation only requires authentication of the unique sensor ID. The language and structure of the claim itself, “the remote server authenticates said unique sensor ID associated with said unique wireless device ID,” requires authentication of the unique sensor ID but not the unique wireless device ID. See Ex. 1001, 19:51–52 (emphasis added). The portion of the limitation reciting “associated with said unique wireless device ID” is linguistically an appositive modifying the “unique sensor ID.” Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges the “plain meaning of the claim term is that the remote server authenticates the unique sensor ID and that such unique sensor ID is associated with a unique wireless device ID.” PO Resp. 18.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions of any of these other claim terms or phrases. PO Resp. 24. We agree with the parties that the identified limitations—which each recite a “means” or “means for” performing a particular function—are means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). And we agree with Petitioner’s uncontested identification of the recited functions and corresponding structure for these limitations for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. 11–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:20–21, 2:24–28, 3:33–36, 17:18–30); id. at 13–15 (citing Ex. 1009, 9:4–6, 9:19–20, 9:57–65, 10:10– 11) (explaining that Lovejoy is incorporated by reference into the ’307 Patent). We adopt the uncontested constructions identified by Petitioner, as” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the improvements offered by the incorporation of Heller’s teachings would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Confirming Petitioner’s assertion that the combination yields improvements, Heller states that it improves the type of glucose monitor used in one of Beck’s embodiments. Beck states that its “medical device 130 includes a glucose meter” which “measure[s] blood glucose levels of blood applied to test strips.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 34. Specifically addressing such “conventional” test strip glucose monitoring, Heller states that its in vivo glucose sensor system addresses a need for continuous or automatic monitoring in a small, comfortable device. Ex. 1016, 2:1–7, 2:15–58, 3:19–25. As such, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Beck and Heller to improve Beck’s medical device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401. We further agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate sensor implementation details described in Heller, e.g., an A/D converter and patient attachment systems, with Beck’s medical device. Pet. 44–45, 53, 55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 228, 234, 236–238, 259, 267, 278, which do no more than yield predictable results, e.g., converting signals or attaching a sensor to a patient. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 7,969,307 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,969,307
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.