- Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,539,474 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01265 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 3 is unpatentable under §103 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet; the Board did not reach the Tayloe and Kawada ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“proposes that it be construed to mean “an element that stores a nonnegligible amount of energy from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner contends that its proposed construction expressly tracks the definition provided in the ’551 patent for “storage element,” which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage module.” Id.; see id. at 10 n.2. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the ’551 patent states: “Storage modules . . . refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:65–67). Petitioner notes that the ’551 patent also states that “the ‘goal of the storage modules’ is ‘to store non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from the EM signal’” and that the patent “specifically distinguishes storage elements from holding elements on this basis.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:59–67 (“Holding modules . . . identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value. Storage modules . . . on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.”)). Thus, Petitioner contends “‘storage element’ should be construed accordingly.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Owner fails to “establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. In particular, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Steer makes any attempt to establish nexus with the elements recited in claim 3 based on a presumption of co-extensiveness or otherwise. Each instance in which Dr. Steer mentions claim 3, he only ties the discussion to energy transfer systems or energy sampling in general, which is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we do not adopt. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 229 (“energy transfer (energy sampling) system – of claim 3”), 230 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 233 (“[u]sing energy sampling . . . as set forth in claim 3”), 234 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 235 (same), 236 (same), 237 (“using the energy transfer (energy sampling) system of claim 3”), 238 (same), 239 (“energy sampling system as set forth in claim 3”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner fails to establish that a presumption of nexus is warranted and similarly fails to establish nexus absent the presumption. Accordingly, for the reasons above, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to establish nexus. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (patent owner “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”).” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Engle Grange, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2020-01334 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable over McCullough and DeBono under §103; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“proposed “a combined system that implements DeBono’s teaching into McCullough’s key fob system,” not that DeBono teaches a second authentication step using a key fob. Id. (citing PO Resp. 21–22; Pet. 41–46, 48–60). Petitioner explains that it “never proposed bodily incorporating DeBono’s biometric shifter into McCullough’s system, and accordingly, [Patent Owner’s] arguments as to DeBono alone miss the mark.” Id. at 14 (citing Pet. 41–46, 53). Petitioner reiterates that its “actual combination of McCullough and DeBono” “perform[s] McCullough’s already-disclosed key fob authentication in the same way a second time during gear shift, as taught by DeBono.” Id.” slip op. at 53
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther
“4. Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness Neither party presents evidence of objective considerations of” slip op. at 67
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“that “[t]o the extent the preamble is limiting, McCullough in view of DeBono and Chung discloses [it], or at least renders [it] obvious.” Pet. 46. The preamble of claim 1 is written in Jepson form. “Jepson form allows a patentee to use the preamble to recite ‘elements or steps of the claimed invention which are conventional or known.’” Epcon Gas Sys. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Kegel Co. v. AMF Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(e) (describing the structure of a Jepson claim). Because a Jepson claim “evidences the intention to use the preamble to define, in part, the structural elements of [a] claimed invention,” the Federal Circuit has held that a “preamble is a limitation in a Jepson-type claim.” Epcon Gas, 279 F.3d at 1029 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we determine that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting and address it herein.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,548,645 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,548,645 - Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01038 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, and 37–40 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 31, 34, and 36 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“E. Level of Skill in the Art To determine the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan, various factors” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“claim terms for construction at that stage of the proceeding, and we did not construe any claim terms expressly as none of the terms were in dispute. Inst. Dec. 22. In the briefing following institution, Patent Owner proposed a construction for the term “inventory,” see, e.g., PO Resp. 21–28, and it became clear that the parties dispute the meaning of the term. Accordingly, we address the parties’ proposed constructions for “inventory” and the arguments they present for those constructions.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“As set forth above, we resolved those disputed issues in favor of Petitioner. For the portions of the preamble and limitations of claim 35 that are not recited in claim 30, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claim 35 and are persuaded that Field teaches or suggests the preamble and claim limitations. Pet. 25–28 (and the exhibits cited therein). Thus, we find that Field teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 35. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has proven that claim 35 would have been obvious over Field.” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“metadata into its signature generating algorithm to create a more robust signature. Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use such an augmented signature generating algorithm in Field’s environment. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Field’s cryptographic signature generating algorithm so it would compute a file’s signature using a file’s metadata. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Accordingly, Field and Anderson disclose that “the cryptographic signature is also computed with the metadata.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40.” slip op. at 76
Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,051,043 - Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01037 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–15, 18, 19, 21–29, and 34 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and Petitioner does not address our preliminary finding in its Reply. Accordingly, we see no reason to disturb that finding, and, therefore, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we find that the record does not support construing” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not transmit an inventory with multiple signatures due to a concern with backup efficiency. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 81
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“144, 202; Pet. Reply 20–21; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 59–62. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that claims 3 and 16 would have been obvious over Field and Anderson. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 129–130.” slip op. at 101
Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,051,043 - Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01040 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Field; the Board did not reach the alternative Strong and Field ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“As we noted in the Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art that was very similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 28). On the preliminary record at that time, we found both parties’ proposals consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). And, on that record, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have “a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“which states: “A method of synchronizing electronic data stored on a first client device with at least a second client device.” Ex. 1001, 19:8–9. Petitioner contends the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting because it states a purpose or intended use for the method recited and neither the term synchronizing nor the full preamble is referenced again in other claim elements. Pet. 10 (citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods, Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the preamble of claim 1 does not limit the scope of the claim. See Inst. Dec. 18–19. Patent Owner does not contest that preliminary determination in its Response and confirmed at the oral hearing that it does not contend the preamble is limiting. See generally PO Resp.; Tr. 107:15– 16 (confirming that Patent Owner does not assert the preamble is limiting). Accordingly, for the reasons explained in our Institution Decision and because the parties agree, we maintain our preliminary determination and reaffirm that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, and, therefore, we need not expressly construe it.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“unclear. Nonetheless, we find that Field teaches receiving a first “inventory” for the reasons explained by Petitioner and based on our construction of “inventory” at least because Field receives an itemized list of electronic data in the form of one or more signatures. Thus, since Field teaches an “inventory,” we do not agree with Patent Owner that Field teaches away from an “inventory.” Additionally, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner, however, fails to identify, and we do not discern, any indication in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from following Field’s teachings or modifying Field as proposed by Petitioner. Further, to this latter point, we do not discern any specific argument by Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Field as Petitioner proposes, aside from Patent Owner’s assertions of teaching away.22 Considering the complete record before us, for the reasons explained above we find that Petitioner has established that Field teaches or suggests limitation 1A.1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to modify Field as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,146 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,146 - Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01039 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claim 5 over Field, Anderson, and Ackerman; and claim 11 over Field, Anderson, and Coombs.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we find that the complete record does not support” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Field in light of potential inefficiencies. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 69
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Weighing the Graham Factors On balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Field, Anderson, and Coombs would have rendered the subject matter of claim 11 of the ’545 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 99
Patent outcomesUS 9,037,545 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,037,545 - SAP SE v. Teradata US, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2021 · IPR2021-01017 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show the claimed file management context in non-persistent memory.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute an inter partes review if “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) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’419 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have possessed at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science with at least two years of experience with database system development.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have had “some combination of (1) more formal education and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’419 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms require explicit construction at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 16. Patent Owner contends that in related district court litigation, Petitioner has proposed construing several terms in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and Patent Owner faults Petitioner for not applying those constructions in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Based on the record before us, we need not construe any claim terms expressly to decide the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“does not show sufficiently that the combination of System R and Lorie teaches a “file management context” stored in “non-persistent memory.” See Prelim. Resp. 16–22. As an initial matter, Petitioner asserts that the “Current Page Table and associated data structures such as free-space bit maps” comprise the claimed “file management context” in “non-persistent memory,” but Petitioner does not cite any passage in System R disclosing that the current page table (or any associated data structure) resides “in memory” rather than “on disk,” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of System R’s Figure 7. See Pet. 28–35. Nor does Petitioner point to any disclosure in Lorie in support of its contention that the current page table in the System R database system is stored in non-persistent memory. See id.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,419 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00449 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch because the combination teaches the claimed elements and increased headroom supplied a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“applicant acted as a lexicographer as to the term “stretching.” We determine that the Specification supports an understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning as extending or spreading out rather than as “make taut” or in “tension.” As argued by Petitioner, “[t]here is no description requiring that a roof be made taut or placed under tension” and, “[t]o the contrary, the specification consistently uses the word ‘stretch’ to describe extending or spreading out.” Pet. Reply 11. For example, in the eleven instances the Specification uses some form of the word “stretch” (aside from in claim 1), six instances relate to “stretching” the frame (or some component of the frame), rather than the roof. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)), 3:15–19 (“When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame. When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the two 14 Under the same logic, Patent Owner’s construction of “stretching” as “make taut” should be rejected because it would render superfluous the “sustaining” requirement in that any “center pole” that makes taut a tent’s roof would also sustain it. Cf. PO Sur-reply 5. types of ribs 20 and 30.” (emphasis added)), 3:23–24 (discussing how “the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support links 40” (emphasis added)), 3:29–30 (discussing “[w]hen the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as described above” (emphasis added)), 4:12–14 (“When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent, the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” (emphasis added)). These instances do not align with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as in “tension” or “make taut.” We find particularly supportive of the above-determined construction that in one of those six instances, the Specification directly contrasts—using a disjunctive “or”—“stretchable” with “collapsible.” See Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On the full record developed at trial, we determine that the increased total ceiling height—i.e., “headroom” as used in the Petition—provides adequate “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the unmodified version of Yang is most similar to the middle example in Petitioner’s graphic above, as it has no structure underneath the tent roof (as roof support bars 7 and groove joints 6 are essentially at the height of the canopy itself). Compare Pet. Reply 20, with Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. The modified device—Yang modified with apex portion 50 of Lynch—is most similar to the rightmost example in Petitioner’s graphic, as the height of the canopy has been increased at least somewhat as compared to the middle example. See Pet. Reply 20; see also PO Resp. 24 (acknowledging that the proposed modification would “increase the height of the roof (the ceiling height)”). The record supports that this increased total ceiling height—even if only for certain locations where a person might stand—would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang based on Lynch as proposed. This determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Klopp, who states that “[i]ncreased headroom in some places under a tent is desirable for stationary users, especially for users of above average height.” Klopp Reply Decl. ¶ 113, cited at Pet. Reply 19.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2020-01026 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “Center Pole” Petitioner proposes to construe “center pole” in element 1A as a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Under the claim construction standard applied in this proceeding, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For the reasons below, we view the plain and ordinary meaning of “stretching” on the complete record here as extending or spreading out, in line with portions of Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“the context of its own invention, “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame,” it is important to note that the Figure 3 embodiment in Lynch includes Velcro fasteners 35 that secure side panel 18 of canopy covering 12 to corner support member 22. See id. at 6:60–64 (“As is shown in phantom in FIG. 3, canopy covering 12 has a side panel 18 which is additionally secured to a top portion of corner support member 22 by means of corresponding hook and loop fasteners, such as Velcro fasteners 35.”). The issue here is whether the “center pole” in the context of the modified device (which does not include Velcro fasteners configured as in Lynch) is “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.”20 We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that this requirement would be satisfied in the context of the modified device, even without Velcro fasteners. We first address whether the “center pole” in the modified device is “constructed for . . . sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” Petitioner states that after modifying roof bearing beam 8 in Yang to include apex portion 50 from Lynch, the “center pole” would “heighten and hold up the fabric tent roof” from Yang. Pet. 40 (citing Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 74–79). According to Petitioner, the proposed modification “would further push up the tent’s rooftop ‘to increase space for activities’ as well as creating more tension in the rooftop to reduce the risk of the rooftop ‘collapsing, bending, or leaking rainwater when raining.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 at 6–7; Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 77–79). We agree that the apex of the roof in Yang as modified by Lynch’s teachings would be higher than the 20 In the Reply, Petitioner seeks to rely on Lynch’s disclosure of using Velcro to attach the roof to the tent frame. See Pet. Reply 17 (bottom paragraph). As argued by Patent Owner, this is a new argument provided for the first time in reply. See PO Sur-reply 12–13; see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We see no error in the Board’s rejection of [a petitioner’s] reliance, in its Reply submissions, on previously unidentified portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuide Consolidated (“TPG”) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). We do not consider Velcro fasteners as part of the modified device.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040
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.