- Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2022-00721 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–19, 21–33, 35–43, 45–50, and 52–62 on both grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“When applying § 325(d), we utilize a two-part framework. See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, we determine “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Id. Second, “if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied,” we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id. In the second part, we consider: (i) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (ii) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in evaluating the asserted prior art; and (iii) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art. Id. at 10–11 (citing factors (c), (e), and (f) of Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential)).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“analysis overlook that the specific solution proposed by Petitioner’s combination is much simpler than that suggested by Patent Owner. Patent Owner acknowledges the negative effects of RF interference and Petitioner’s evidence, including the discussion in the background section of the ’083 patent, establishes on this record that it was known that preventing RF interference was an important consideration in cable connector design, and that interference is particularly disruptive where an electromagnetic buffer is not provided by an adequate electrical and/or physical interface between the port and the connector. See, e.g., Pet. 17 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:51–67) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 61–62). Petitioner’s evidence also establishes that Youtsey’s o-rings protect a center conductor from degradation due to moisture. See id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:19–22, 2:14–16, 5:50–53). And, Horak specifically provides that a conductive, compressible o-ring can address both issues by blocking RF interference and sealing from the weather, e.g., moisture. See id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1009, 5:4–7; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 64–66). Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art needed to be motivated to create a coupler-body grounding path in particular, as opposed to being motivated to modify Youtsey such that the connector was not only sealed off from moisture (which Youtsey already taught), but also blocked RF interference, which was a known issue of concern and which Horak taught could be addressed with the same component that also seals off from moisture. Thus, Horak’s teaching, as applied to Youtsey’s o-rings, results in the element that Patent Owner asserts does not exist in the prior art—a coupler-body grounding path—whether or not creating that coupler-body grounding path was a specific, intended goal prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification to Youtsey. Accordingly, on the present record, Patent Owner’s argument does not detract from Petitioner’s stated motivation and reasons for the proposed combination.” slip op. at 62
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s piecemeal arguments in response to Petitioner’s analysis overlook that the specific solution proposed by Petitioner’s combination is much simpler than that suggested by Patent Owner. Patent Owner acknowledges the negative effects of RF interference and Petitioner’s evidence, including the discussion in the background section of the ’083 patent, establishes on this record that it was known that preventing RF interference was an important consideration in cable connector design, and that interference is particularly disruptive where an electromagnetic buffer is not provided by an adequate electrical and/or physical interface between the port and the connector. See, e.g., Pet. 17 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:51–67) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 61–62). Petitioner’s evidence also establishes that Youtsey’s o-rings protect a center conductor from degradation due to moisture. See id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:19–22, 2:14–16, 5:50–53). And, Horak specifically provides that a conductive, compressible o-ring can address both issues by blocking RF interference and sealing from the weather, e.g., moisture. See id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1009, 5:4–7; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 64–66). Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art needed to be motivated to create a coupler-body grounding path in particular, as opposed to being motivated to modify Youtsey such that the connector was not only sealed off from moisture (which Youtsey already taught), but also blocked RF interference, which was a known issue of concern and which Horak taught could be addressed with the same component that also seals off from moisture. Thus, Horak’s teaching, as applied to Youtsey’s o-rings, results in the element that Patent Owner asserts does not exist in the prior art—a coupler-body grounding path—whether or not creating that coupler-body grounding path was a specific, intended goal prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification to Youtsey. Accordingly, on the present record, Patent Owner’s argument does not detract from Petitioner’s stated motivation and reasons for the proposed combination.” slip op. at 62
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“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 9 Lionetto teaches that leaf spring 22 also provides electrical contact through the conductors. Ex. 1008, 2:34–36. 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”). We do not agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led in a direction divergent from that taken by Patent Owner. Although we agree with Patent Owner that Lionetto attributes importance to annular leaf spring 22, Lionetto also attributes importance to conductive elastomer gasket ring 34. In particular, Lionetto expressly attributes the electrical contact to both the spring and the gasket ring. See Ex. 1008, 2:34–36 (“the electrical contact is essentially through the leaf spring 22 and a conductive elastomer 34 against which the tapered surface 27 abuts”). And, Lionetto’s claims repeat the importance of both structures in providing continuous electrical contact and RFI suppression. See id. at 2:50–58 (claim 1) (“an annular electrical spring contact member which functions to provide continuous annular outer conductor electrical contact and RFI suppression . . . even during slight conductor misalignment”), 3:14–20 (“A connector of claim 1, and further comprising an electrically conductive elastomer gasket ring, carried on said male member against which said outer end taper of said female member may engage and compensates for misalignment of said male and female connector halves when fully engaged, providing continuous circumferential electrical contact and RFI suppression.”). Thus, Lionetto supports a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to use an annular spring, a conductive gasket ring, or both to provide continuous electrical contact and RFI suppression across the connector. But, we disagree with Patent Owner that Lionetto would have led one of ordinary skill in the art away from using a conductive gasket ring in Youtsey, as proposed by Petitioner, because, as explained above, Lionetto uses a conductive gasket ring and expressly attributes the benefits noted above to its use (i.e., continuous electrical contact and RFI suppression). slip op. at 56
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,225,083 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2022 · IPR2021-00346 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6–9, 12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Downey and Sedra, with Hahnel added for claims 6–9 and 17–20.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“second sentence using the pronoun “it” and specifically states that “[t]ypically” the type of input that may control the switch is “an electrical or electronic input.” This sentence is important at least because the patentees chose to describe these control inputs as “typically.” The use of “typically,” in this context, is non-limiting. In other words, the ’108 patent expressly leaves open the option that the described switch may be controlled with an input that is not electrical or electronic. The fourth, and final, sentence of this paragraph is critical. It specifically states that “[i]f the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically a different signal than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch.” This sentence is significant for several reasons. First, by stating “if the switch is controlled by an electronic signal” (emphasis added), the Specification reaffirms that the switch may be controlled by an input that is not an electronic signal. Second, reading the sentence as a whole, it states that “[i]f the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically a different signal than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch” (emphasis added). To clarify, a signal that is different than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch is what the parties refer to as “an independent control signal.” Thus, the fourth sentence, in the context of the parties’ dispute, means that if the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically an independent control signal. The same meaning of “typically” applies here, i.e., it is non-limiting. Thus, if the first part of the sentence that provides the conditional clause (if) is met, i.e., the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, the electronic signal is not always an independent control signal because typically does not require always. Putting the discussion above into context, particularly in comparison to the construction advocated by Patent Owner, it is important to recognize that the lexicographic definition does not require a switch to be “dictated by an independent control input” because the definition specifically says that if the switch is controlled by an electronic control signal it is typically a different signal (i.e., an independent signal). Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction seeks to limit the term “switch” to what is expressly stated in the Specification as typical.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in 5 Neither party presents evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of radio frequency circuit design.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have: (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical or computer engineering (or a related academic field), and at least two (2) additional years of experience in the design and development of radio frequency circuits and/or systems, or (b) at least five (5) years of experience and training in the design and development of radio frequency circuits and/or systems.” PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶ 20). We determine that the two proposed levels are closely aligned and are consistent with the ’108 patent and the asserted prior art.6 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt the following level in determining the patentability of the challenged claims: a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a related subject, and two years of experience in the field of radio frequency circuit design and development.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Downey alone discloses this limitation. As discussed above, Patent Owner argues at length about why inverter U5A in Downey’s frequency tripler circuit is not configured as a switch and does not operate as a switch. Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the specific circuit components shown in Downey’s frequency tripler circuit and characteristics of the MM74C04 inverter. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Downey and Sedra also teaches this limitation, except to argue that Sedra’s inverter when combined with Downey “would not change the operation of Downey’s frequency tripler circuit,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have to ignore all of the disclosure in Downey, and abandon all of the teachings and suggestions of Downey” to combine the two references. PO Resp. 49–50. Patent Owner therefore does not meaningfully address Petitioner’s proposed combination. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art”) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). The claims require “a first switch configured to up-convert.” Sedra specifically discloses a switch used to implement an inverter, and also states that an “inverter is basically a voltage-controlled switch”—disclosure that Patent Owner does not dispute. See Ex. 1004, 908–09, Fig. 13.2. Patent Owner also does not dispute that Downey’s frequency tripler circuit includes an inverter that upconverts the input signal. Ex. 1003, 4:8–13. Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to the inverter U5A that operates as a non-linear amplifier, as disclosed in Downey. PO Resp. 46–50. Patent Owner specifically argues “[i]nverter U5A in the frequency tripler circuit of Downey is not configured as a switch, nor can it be without rendering the circuit unsuitable for its intended purpose.” PO Resp. 48. But Sedra’s inverter is a switch. Patent Owner does not explain why a switch-based inverter would not work in Downey to accomplish the up-conversion.” slip op. at 39
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Decided for petitioner
“IV. PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES At the oral hearing, Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s demonstratives 81 and 82 (see Paper 30) as containing new arguments that were not previously presented by Patent Owner. Tr. 6:17–7:1. Petitioner argued that those demonstratives contain testimony from Dr. van der Weide that Patent Owner did not cite in its Sur-reply and address an issue that was not presented in Patent Owner’s Response. Id. Patent Owner did not rely on those demonstratives during the oral hearing. Id. at 8:10–15 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that he may not refer to those demonstratives during the hearing). We therefore dismiss Petitioner’s objection as moot.21” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 8,190,108 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,190,108 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00187 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Moses; the Board did not reach the alternative Levesque ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in . . . electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the field of vehicle telematics systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 8. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’335 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. However, only terms that are in controversy need to be expressly construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). Petitioner contends that the terms in the Challenged Claims are properly understood to have their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not dispute this contention. See generally PO Resp. Therefore, because no controversy regarding claim construction exits, it is not necessary for us to construe expressly any claim term.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“attempts to map to the CVP System (see PO Resp. 56–59)—Petitioner has established that Moses discloses or suggests the subject matter of those claims. The proposed combinations are not based on hindsight reconstruction; rather, they are straightforward and logical. Moses indisputably discloses a response management system with automated rule-based alert notifications and response deployment capabilities. The only arguable differences Patent Owner alleges are whether Moses discloses storing information about something happening/occurrence versus more general information and whether Moses discloses providing responses that recommend a particular action be taken versus responses that are merely informational. We find Petitioner’s evidence from Moses to be particularly strong that a skilled artisan would have known to store information about occurrences and provide responses including recommended actions. Thus, for all the reasons discussed above (supra § III.B.1) and here, we give Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness substantial weight. Additionally, we disagree with most of Patent Owner’s arguments in response and we do not give Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness substantial weight for the reasons discussed above (supra § III.C). But, even if we were to have found that Patent Owner established a nexus, given its tenuous connection to the only difference Patent Owner alleges to exist between the systems disclosed by the prior art and the claimed invention, we find that the evidentiary weight favoring obviousness significantly outweighs the most probative weight that could be given to the objective evidence presented. We also find that the balance weighs strongly in Petitioner’s favor regarding claims 2–7, 9–16, and 18–22 for the same reasons discussed above and additionally because Patent Owner has not established that the CVP System practices any of these claims or that there is a nexus between the objective indicia of nonobviousness and any of these claims. Accordingly, on balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–22 of the ’335 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“As stated in Fox Factory, “presuming nexus is appropriate when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (quotations omitted). Patent Owner does not assert that the CVP System is entitled to a presumption of nexus. See generally PO Resp. 55–61. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not provide any evidence or argument to even suggest that the CVP System and the claimed invention are coextensive. Id. Exhibit 2015 evidences that the CVP System includes a myriad of features that would allegedly provide important benefits to its customers. Therefore, Patent Owner is not entitled to a presumption of nexus because, even presuming the CVP System incorporates the patented invention, it cannot be disputed that the claimed invention is only one of many components included in the CVP System. See generally Ex. 2015. Of course, our nexus inquiry does not end there because Patent Owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the alleged commercial success achieved with the CVP System is in some way a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. But on this front, Patent Owner again fails to provide any foundational basis to establish a link between the claimed invention and the evidence of commercial success. Instead, Patent Owner simply states, “[b]ecause the [CVP System] embodies all the limitations of the independent claims of the ’335 patent, sufficient nexus exists between [Patent Owner’s] commercial success and the claims.” PO Resp. 55. And after Petitioner pointed out that Patent Owner had failed to establish any specific link between the claimed invention and commercial success evidence (Pet. Reply 25–26), Patent Owner responded as follows: “It is not necessary, however, that the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Oren Techs., LLC v. Proppant Express Invs. LLC, No. 2019-1778, 2021 WL 3120819, at *7 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2021). As [Patent Owner] explained, [Petitioner’s CVP System] is commercially successful at least in part due to the advertised remote vehicle monitoring functionality. See Exs. 2016-2023. This is more than adequate to establish commercial success. Oren Techs, 2021 WL 3120819, at *7. PO Sur-reply 25–26. Patent Owner has not persuasively shown by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 9,147,335 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,147,335 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00195 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art in light of the subject matter of the ’244 patent, which is not limited to “aeronautical” or “aerospace” applications, claims a “stowage bin assembly” and a “hinge assembly,” and expressly refers broadly to “transportation vehicles” as typically including “overhead storage compartments,” identifying “airplanes” only as an “example” of a “transportation vehicle.” Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:12–15, 7:31–8:64. Patent Owner’s argument appears to be no more than a transparent attempt to baselessly suggest that Dr. Codd should be excluded from testifying because he lacks “the proper background or sufficient experience in the field” under Patent Owner’s unreasonable proposed level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the prior art at issue.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66). Patent Owner proposes an express construction for “stowage bin door” and “self-opening mechanism.” Prelim. Resp. 13– 17. We find no claim term requires an express construction in reaching our decision for the reasons below to deny institution of inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,801,244 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00192 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–6 or 12–17 were unpatentable; claims 1 and 7–11 had been disclaimed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“More importantly, Petitioner provides no sufficient reasoning and cites no support for construing the required “self-opening mechanism” to be so broad as to include a mechanism that provides “only some damping against gravity to be ‘self-opening.’” Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a component that only opposes opening is not a “self-opening mechanism.” See Sur-reply 2. In short, as shown by Patent Owner, the plain and ordinary meaning of “self-opening mechanism” in the context of the ’315 patent, as required by claims 2–6 and 12–17, is a mechanism that acts on its own accord to open the stowage bin door. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006). An express construction of any other claim term is not necessary for” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“9 Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 36–46. We deny institution of inter partes review for the reasons provided above and, therefore, do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,760,315 - Termax Company v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00106 · APJ Rae Lynn P Guest · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on the sole design claim because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Scroggie or obviousness over Scroggie, Scroggie and Benedetti, or Benedetti and Scroggie.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Scroggie is based entirely on the premise that we cannot consider the appearance of the lower platform. See Pet. 32 (“Factoring out unclaimed features and the functional aspects of the lower platform, a side-by-side comparison of the remaining aspects of the claimed design . . . illustrates the D’826 design is identical in all material respects to Scroggie and is anticipated . . . .”). Indeed, on the record before us, Petitioner does not address the design as a whole, to the extent that it includes the appearance of the lower platform, in order to show that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would deem the design depicted in Scroggie to have the same overall visual appearance as that claimed in the ’826 patent. Rather, Petitioner asserts that “there are no differences between Scroggie and the claimed design.” Pet. 41. Indeed, on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that the lower platform is significant to the overall appearance of the fastener design, and thus Petitioner’s analysis is not sufficient on this record. Because we disagree with Petitioner’s premise that the lower platform’s appearance is primarily dictated by function, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to this ground.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“platform is not visible “at all times during the fastener’s normal use,” but is “hidden from view.” Pet. 24. Again, the use of the fastener is not limited to use with a seal for a vehicle. Petitioner provides no evidence of manufacturing techniques, sales, advertising, or installation, to support the contention that “[f]rom manufacture, sale and installation, the lower platform is enshrouded by the perimeter seal.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 65). And, although Petitioner relies on Mr. Wheelock’s testimony, that testimony is unsupported on the record before us. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 65 (failing to identify any support for his opinion). Accordingly, we give Mr. Wheelock’s testimony on this point little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Additionally, as noted above, we are not persuaded that a seal is a necessary component for a general fastener, and, thus, we are not persuaded that fasteners are not manufactured or sold without seals attached. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that such a position is not supported by case law.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person having at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years of experience in push-in fastener engineering, and specifically sealing fasteners, as used in the assembly of vehicle trims.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner’s definition leaves out a key detail “that the person actually has to be a ‘designer’” and “incorrectly alleges that the person at issue need only be someone with ‘experience’ with push-in fastener ‘engineering,’ without any experience whatsoever in designing them.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. However, Patent Owner also asserts that an ordinary designer is “[a] person having an engineering degree and at least three years of experience in designing fasteners with designs similar to the ‘D826 patent, or comparable qualifications acquired through work experience.” Id. at 12 (bold emphasis added). Because Patent Owner’s definition includes qualifications acquired through “work experience” broadly, we think the parties’ definitions are quite close. In particular, neither definition strictly requires three years of design experience in fasteners; rather, each includes comparable qualifications through other work experiences in fastener technology. Accordingly, the result is not impacted based on whether we rely on Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s definition of the skilled artisan. Further, based on the limited record before us, we note that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art designs 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).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In construing the design claim, if the particular appearance of a design aspect is dictated by its function, the functional element’s appearance cannot significantly contribute to an ornamental design because it would necessarily have the same appearance in any other device where it serves the same function. Sport Dimension, 820 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he fact finder should not focus on the particular designs of these elements when determining infringement, but rather focus on what these elements contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation.”). Accordingly, if a feature is shown in the prior art as a whole having a variety of appearances and yet serves the same function, the appearance is likely not critical to its function, or that feature would have looked identical in each device’s design. See Best Lock, 94 F.3d at 1566 (“A design is not dictated solely by its function when alternative designs for the article of manufacture are available.”); L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123 (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Thus, to determine what visual aspects of a design are primarily functional, any analysis must consider how that feature appears throughout the prior art and whether and what aspects of that feature appear consistently.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Unified Patents, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 17, 2022 · IPR2021-01476 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 10 on both § 103 grounds: Biderman with Gigliotti, and Sood, Myers, Casalena, Nilsson, and Ma.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related scientific field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with streaming media applications or related fields (e.g., network applications),” where a “lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 4-5 years).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine, on the current record, that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’987 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt that level in deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In this inter partes review, claims are construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Neither party contends that any claim term requires express construction. Pet. 10; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we do not expressly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner sufficiently shows that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Biderman and Gigliotti. Pet. 30–33. Patent Owner’s arguments misconstrue Petitioner’s contentions regarding the benefits of the combination. Petitioner contends that Biderman describes that its technique “allows the client device to switch between the versions of the program without a substantial interruption of the program” at a transition point by storing content in a buffer, but a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that, without a technique for measuring the amount of content in the buffer, Biderman’s client might switch to the second playlist content without sufficient content stored in the buffer, which might result in an interrupted stream of media, contrary to its goals. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 140) (emphasis added). Petitioner acknowledges that Biderman teaches the transition without a substantial interruption, but argues Biderman does not account for sufficient second playlist content stored in the buffer. Petitioner’s claimed motivation is different than just avoiding substantial interruptions during streaming, i.e., Petitioner’s claimed improvement from Gigliotti’s technique relates to interruption that may come later, after the transition to the second playlist. According to Petitioner, Gigliotti’s technique of measuring buffer fill levels before switching occurs ensures an uninterrupted or substantially uninterrupted stream of media, thereby improving Biderman’s client device and system. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–125). Gigliotti’s selection of the most appropriate available bit rate for the stream to provide uninterrupted streaming is based on Gigliotti’s heuristics module’s statistical analysis of the buffer’s activity and the buffer’s fill level. See supra § III.E.1.f; Ex. 1020 ¶ 42. Accordingly, on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Gigliotti’s technique is based on adding Gigliotti’s heuristics module functionality to Biderman. See Pet. 32. Petitioner’s contention that there would be a reasonable likelihood of success in doing so is supported by Dr. Reddy’s testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–126 (citing Ex. 1009, 5). For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we determine Petitioner provides an adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Biderman and Gigliotti in the manner asserted by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 30–32.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,326,987 - Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01418 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable; each ground relied on file-relative Candelore-II pointers disclaimed during prosecution.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [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) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s first petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a second petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021- 01419. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1003, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 22–27 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 30–40 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Toma, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1.” slip op. at 42
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,443 - Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01419 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 were unpatentable over either asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [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) (2018). For the reasons below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable 1 This Petition is Petitioner’s second petition challenging claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 13–16 of the ’443 patent. As noted below, Petitioner also filed a petition challenging the same claims of the ’443 patent in IPR2021-01418. Petitioner filed a Ranking and Explanation of Material Differences Between Petitions (Paper 3), where Petitioner discusses the two petitions. Because of the determination we reach on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments as to whether two petitions are necessary. likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Bajaj, however, testifies that he disagrees with Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill because the definition “exceeds the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 25. Nonetheless, Dr. Bajaj does not propose a specific level of ordinary skill in the art and states that, for purposes of his declaration, he applies Dr. Storer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’443 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“prosecution history sheds substantial light on how the applicants understood the disputed claim language. As set forth above, in response to rejections based on Candelore-II, the applicants raised two primary arguments. First, the applicants argued that Candelore-II “does not . . . appear to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video by encrypting at least one block of data within the partially encrypted frame so that only a portion of the encoded frame is encrypted.” Ex. 1103, 250. Second, and importantly, the applicants argued that Candelore-II’s failure to disclose partial encryption of encoded frames of video “is highlighted by the Candelore patent’s failure to disclose DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 251 (first emphasis added). Critically, the very next sentence begins with the word instead, and states, “[i]nstead, the Candelore patent discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” Id. (emphases added). These two sentences from the applicants’ argument directly contrast the recited “offset value” language with Candelore-II’s disclosure. Specifically, the applicants sought to distinguish Candelore-II because its pointers are relative to the file. We find that by contrasting Candelore-II’s pointers, the applicants “ma[d]e clear that the invention does not include a particular feature”— pointers that are relative to the file. GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And, we also find that the applicants’ arguments constitute a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” of an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame, where the offset value is relative to the file. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although we agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never raised a distinction between offset values ‘relative to a file’ and offset values ‘relative to a frame’ at any point during prosecution,” we do not agree with Petitioner that the applicants “never said that offset values relative to a file are excluded from the scope of the claim.” Prelim. Reply 10. Rather, we find no other way to interpret the applicants’ arguments. As noted above, the applicants specifically stated that Candelore-II fails to disclose “DRM information including ‘an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame’” and then stated that “[i]nstead,” Candelore-II “discloses pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.” The applicants’ argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue here and specifically says that it is not disclosed because Candelore-II discloses something else instead.11 Accordingly, for these reasons, we find that the applicants disclaimed “pointers that point to the location of encrypted portions of the video data relative to the file.”” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“regarding the meaning of “an offset value that points to the start of an encrypted block within an encoded frame,” we determine that the applicants disclaimed an offset value that is relative to the file. See supra § II.A.2. On the present record, we find Patent Owner’s argument and evidence persuasive regarding Candelore-II’s disclosure. In particular, Patent Owner identifies the teachings of Candelore-II directed to its pointers, and Candelore-II’s description and Figure 3 support Patent Owner’s argument that Candelore-II’s pointers are relative to the file. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 31, Fig. 3). Additionally, Petitioner does not contest Patent Owner’s position that Candelore-II teaches pointers that are relative to the file. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Reply. Further, as applied to the combination, Petitioner does not propose modifying Candelore-II’s pointers such that they are not relative to the file. See, e.g., Pet. 30–36 (discussing motivation and reasonable expectation of success), 41–53 (discussing, inter alia, limitations [1f], [1h], [1i], and [1j]). Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution of the ’443 patent, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [1j] and, hence, claim 1. d. Independent Claim 7 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 As noted above, limitation [7j] of independent claim 7 recites the same “offset value” language as limitation [1j] and Petitioner relies on its arguments and evidence directed to limitation [1j] in its discussion of limitation [7j]. See Pet. 72–73 (limitation [7j]). For the same reasons discussed above, we find that the same deficiency regarding claim 1 applies equally to claim 7 and the claims that depend from claim 1 or claim 7— claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16. Accordingly, because Petitioner relies on the same teaching of Candelore-II that was disclaimed from the scope of the claims during prosecution, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently on the present record that the combination of Notoya, Matsui, Candelore-I, and Candelore-II teaches or suggests the subject matter of limitation [7j] and, via their dependency from claim 1 or claim 7, the subject matter of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16.” slip op. at 44
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,257,443 - Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · PGR2020-00084 · APJ Frederick C Laney · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19, 21–42, and 44–53 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek; claims 20 and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek and Gilmore.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s contention persuasive. We agree that the description of a POSA in this case, which is most consistent with the scope and content of the ’894 patent and the prior art, properly includes a working knowledge of both POS activation systems and lottery systems. Therefore, the level of skill in the art for this case is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Although Patent Owner’s proposal most accurately reflects the background of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, the differences between the parties’ proposed formulations are not material to any issue in dispute and the parties do not contend otherwise. All of the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the plain meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system” applies, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices.8 We agree with Petitioner that adding “third party” to the plain meaning simply creates uncertainty. For example, it is unclear whether “third party” imports a limitation for the owner/manufacturer of the processor/system to be a different entity than the owner/manufacturer of the retailer and lottery administration devices (which is unrelated to the functionality or structure of the processor/system) or whether “third party” 8 Rather than “between two devices,” Patent Owner refers to “between a lottery administration system and retailer.” PO Resp. 20. Because other elements in the claims dictate the particular devices with which the transaction processor communicates, we determine that it would be improper to import that limitation into the meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system.” Nevertheless, even if those particular devices were imported, it would not change our obviousness analysis because no issue rests on whether the alleged transaction processor in the prior art is processing a transaction between a lottery administration system and retailer. imports a limitation for the processor/system to be a separate and distinct device from the retailer point of sale and lottery administration devices. Although Patent Owner’s counsel made clear that the latter interpretation was intended (Tr. 41:10–42:7, 43:2–43:15), we do not agree that the use of the words “third party” in Figures 7 and 8 of the ’894 patent limits the “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to being a separate and distinct device from the retailer and lottery administration devices. Identifying the transaction processor as a “Third Party Processor” in two illustrative figures depicting a process (Ex. 1001, Figs. 7, 8), without anything more in the written description to explain why a “third party processor” may be an important or significant aspect of the transaction processor or invention as a whole, does not justify limiting the plain meaning of a “transaction processor” to the “third party processor” shown. Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that an invention will only be limited to its preferred embodiment when “the patentee uses words that manifest a clear intention to restrict the scope of the claims to that embodiment”).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Therefore, we construe “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” in accordance with their plain meaning, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices. Additionally, we decline to limit “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to “third party” processors or systems because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty. However, we do construe the “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system,” “retailer”/“retailer POS,” and “lottery administration system” as separate and distinct components.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“processing unit, causes payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the lottery administration system. And Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown Szrek discloses the transaction processor (store back office 240) provides payment confirmation to the lottery administration system (game provider 250). PO Resp. 13–14, 48–53; Sur-reply 19–20. We are persuaded by Petitioner, however, that Szrek’s description of the inter-operational characteristics of store back office 240, cash register/POS terminal 230, and game provider system 250 would have suggested to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention that store back office 240 would include an instruction to cause payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the game provider system 250. Ex. 1007, 4:28–29, 4:56–67, 5:17–20, 6:44–47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62–64.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 10,769,894 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,769,894
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.