• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01231 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01262 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

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

    “attempts to extrapolate Mahajan’s specific teachings and specific architecture into a general principle such that specific commands are converted to universal commands and then universal commands are converted to specific commands regardless of the location of the process within a distributed system. See Tr. 14:5–11. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s extrapolation arguments are unsupported by Mahajan. We understand Petitioner argues that Mahajan’s “distributed computing environments” would have rendered it obvious to alter the location where command conversions occur. Pet. 41; Reply 10–11, 14. Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00322 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,356,251
• Mission Intergrated Technologies, LLC v. Joshua ClementeSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01285 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 10–17 are unpatentable as anticipated by each asserted reference; claim 9 was not shown unpatentable because the references do not disclose its claimed ramp.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, and about two years of experience designing structural systems like tactical staircases or elevated tactical systems that can be vehicle mounted and can be folded and stowed and elevated for use by personnel or equivalent experience.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 12, 13). Mr. Hayduk states his conclusion as to the proposed level of ordinary, but does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 12, 13. Thus, his opinion testimony is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Here, we give it some, but little, weight because it appears to be consistent with the general prior art discussed and cited in the record of the ’677 patent. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. See generally, PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Hayduk’s Declaration testimony, we adopt, with minor modification, Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill. We determine that in this proceeding a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and two years of experience designing structural systems like tactical staircases or elevated tactical systems that can be vehicle mounted and can be folded and stowed and elevated for use by personnel or equivalent experience, or an equivalent balance of education and work experience, such that more education offsets the need for some work experience, and more work experience can offset the need for coursework leading to a four-year college degree. We also have eliminated the open-ended phrase of “at least” and the word “about” in describing the” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the claim terms require no express construction. Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s position. See generally Prelim. Resp. Having considered the parties’ positions and evidence of record, we determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to determine the patentability issues in this proceeding. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenOther

    “Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for petitioner

    “In this inter partes review, the burden is on the petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A petitioner first must raise the issue of entitlement to a claimed priority date by “identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral application or applications allegedly lacking § 112 support for the claims based on the identified features.” Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 8, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014). Then, the patent owner must make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by the petitioner. See id. Here, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he ’677 patent includes more content than the ‘022 provisional application.” Pet. 6. We do not consider this single sentence comment on “content” to provide the specificity required of comparing the disclosure of the provisional application to the claims of the ’677 patent to thereby shift the burden to Patent Owner to show entitlement to the earlier filing date. Thus, based on the record before us, for purposes is November 20, 2018, the filing date of the provisional application.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 11,174,677 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 11,174,677
• Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · PGR2023-00039 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 24 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept; the petitioner did not prove the remaining challenged claims unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a degree in chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field with 1–2 years of experience in designing power generation systems, Blockchain mining systems, or other comparable hands-on experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner adds that “[a]lternatively, a person having 3–5 years of experience in the Blockchain mining industry would also qualify as a POSITA” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We apply the same claim construction standard used in district court actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2024). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 11

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

    “To address that “the mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database,” as recited by limitation [1c_iii], Petitioner asserts that CryptoKube’s system includes “Bitcoin miners such as spondooliestech SP35 servers.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Kasdorf, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that to mine Bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database, which is implemented as a public ledger distributed among many peer-to-peer devices connected to the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 108–109; Ex. 1010 ¶ 419). Mr. Kasdorf’s declaration testimony is nearly verbatim to the Petition and similarly provides no indication as to what in CryptoKube constitutes a “mining processor” other than his conclusory opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that to mine bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the 19 We note that Mr. Kasdorf’s reliance on Kheterpal is limited to Kheterpal’s background discussion regarding the Bitcoin protocol inasmuch as it “defines a system in which the creation and distribution of the bitcoin cryptocurrency is governed by consensus among a peer-to-peer network” and includes “a public ledger in which new transactions are verified and recorded by members of the network via cryptography.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that in the Petition, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Kasdorf explains or “cite[s] any evidence regarding which component is the ‘necessarily’ present mining processor (limitation 1[c_i]) or how this unspecified mining processor is ‘connected to the network interface and adapted to . . . communicate with the blockchain database’ (limitation 1[c_iii]).” PO Resp. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104–105, 108–109).” slip op. at 21

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s contention that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation” (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 21)) is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Rather, Petitioner supplements its conclusory assertion that a “mining processor” is necessarily present in CryptoKube’s spondooliestech SP35 servers (Pet. 23, 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4)) with its new assertion that that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation.” Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner does not purport to have presented this theory in the Petition. Id. Instead, Petitioner argues that this theory was properly raised in response to what Petitioner alleges to be an admission by” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,574,372 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,574,372
• Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2022-01397 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 103 over Willis and Xing, with claim 8 also unpatentable over Willis, Xing, and Laux; claim 13 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable, supported by the prior art evidence, the Specification, and Dr. Stein’s Declaration testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–24), and, for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 21

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that “it was known that implementing a variable transmission in a milling machine could improve fuel efficiency” (id. at 33–34), and relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Stein, reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that using a hydromechanical CVT permitted controlling an engine to a speed that minimizes fuel consumption for a given load while controlling transmission gear ratios to achieve desired transmission output speeds that maximize machine performance.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Petitioner further asserts that Xing taught a method of controllably adjusting a CVT to further improve fuel efficiency without impacting machine performance. Supra [Pet. 18–24]. Thus, implementing a CVT and control method like that taught by Xing in Willis’s milling machine would have been a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Stein, Petitioner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected to successfully incorporate Xing’s teachings, including those related to CVTs, engines, transmission control algorithms, and associated sensors, into Willis’s milling machine” because it would have been no more that the combination of “prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–66); see also id. at 34–35 (“This combination would further apply a known technique and hardware to a known device that was ready for improvement, predictably yielding the result of the expected improvement.”). Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have expected that such a combination would improve the fuel consumption and energy efficiency of Willis’s milling machine, while maintaining desired rotor speed during operation.” Id. at 35. We find, on the complete trial record, that a person having ordinary” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Owner’s counterarguments and find, on the complete trial record, that Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willis and Xing teaches or suggests “determining an engine load of the engine” and “adjusting an engine speed of the engine based on the engine load” as recited by limitation 1[b], and recited in part by limitation 1[c]. Petitioner explains that Xing’s controller 116 “receive[s] signals from sensors communicatively coupled to the controller, such as torque sensor 122 and engine speed sensor 124” (Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:16–40)), and [b]ased on those signals, the controller in Xing evaluated power losses from the transmission and other power consuming components at different candidate operating speeds, measured engine load to determine the work output demanded of the machine, and independently set engine speeds and transmission ratios to minimize fuel consumption while achieving desired performance. Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:67–9:3, 9:9–17). We find Petitioner’s explanation to be consistent with Xing’s disclosure that the current load power requirement for the work vehicle may be determined indirectly by calculating the current engine power (Pengine) and the current power loss (Ploss) for the work vehicle 10. For example, as indicated above, the controller 116 may be configured to continuously monitor the engine speed and the engine torque (via sensors 122, 124), thereby allowing for the current engine power to be calculated by the controller 116. Ex. 1006, 9:37–44; see also id at 9:27–31 (“The relationship between the load power requirement and the power produced by the engine 22 of the work vehicle 10 is provided” by Equation 1: “Pengine = Pload + Ploss.”).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,975,538 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,975,538
• Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01395 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15, 17–33, 35–42, and 44 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 45–61 and 63 were not shown unpatentable because the petition failed to identify corresponding structure for means-plus-function limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner contends “[a] POSITA in the field of the ’995 patent (mobile construction machines) would have had knowledge of the literature concerning machine design, including hydraulic systems and their use to steer and position wheels/tracks, before July 2004.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had: (i) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working on mobile construction machine design (or in a similar field); or (ii) seven years of experience working on mobile construction machine design (or in a similar field). Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Dr. Klopp states that “[w]hile I do not opine on the correctness of [Petitioner’s] description [of the level of ordinary skill], I apply [Petitioner’s] description of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of my declaration.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 26. Based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Orr’s Declaration testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’995 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28; Ex. 1001 (describing a mobile construction machine); Exs. 1005–1015 (disclosing aspects of mobile construction machine design).” slip op. at 27

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

    “1. Means-plus-function terms Independent claim 45 uses “means-plus-function” language, reciting several such clauses. Ex. 1001, 14:31–50; see 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (we cite to the pre-AIA version of the statute applicable to the challenged claims). Means-plus-function claiming occurs when a claim term is drafted in a manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which states: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6; Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). “Determining the claimed function and the corresponding structure for a claim limitation written in means-plus-function format are both matters of claim construction.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999) On the complete record, we have not been directed to any dispute between the parties whether § 112 ¶ 6 applies to the recited means-plus-function clauses in the Challenged Claims. Pet. 17; PO Resp. 9.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Our Rules require that, “[w]here the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function [limitation] . . ., the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3); cf. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A] challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.”).” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “and find, on the complete trial record, that Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the Bitelli to allow for rear wheel steering. First, we find that the complete record support’s Petitioner’s basis that Bitelli would have a rear wheel scraping problem. See Pet. 37. Bitelli ’037 expressly states that “[o]ne limitation shown by the machine described in the aforementioned patent is that when the rear wheels or tracks are set in their retracted position inside the frame, when turning they scrape the ground with considerable resistance.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 12. The exhibit makes clear that the “aforementioned patent” is a patent application with the number VI98U000098. Id. ¶ 11. The trial record also makes clear that Bitelli, a published European patent application, claims priority to that patent application. See Ex. 1011, code (30) (claiming priority to Italian application VI980098 U). As such, the machine in Bitelli is the machine with the wheel scraping problem identified in Bitelli ’037. See also Pet. Reply 9 (showing images from Ex. 1011 and Ex. 104211 (the Italian application referenced in Ex. 1014 depicting the same machine). Accordingly, we do not find an evidentiary gap in Petitioner’s contentions. Cf. PO Resp. 19–20; PO Sur-reply 11–12.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 7,523,995 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,523,995
• Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01394 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 18, 21–29, and 31–35 are unpatentable over the stated § 103 grounds; claims 30, 45, and 49–63 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “in the technical field of the ’995 patent (mobile construction machines) would have had knowledge of the technical literature concerning machine design, including hydraulic and mechanical systems and their use to steer and position wheels or tracks, before July 2004.” Pet. 15 (referencing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36). Petitioner further contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would typically have had: (i) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working on mobile construction machine design (or in a similar field); or (ii) seven years of experience working on mobile construction machine design (or in a similar field). Id. (referencing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Dr. Klopp states that “[w]hile I do not opine on the correctness of [Petitioner’s] description [of the level of ordinary skill], I apply [Petitioner’s] description of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of my declaration.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 26. Based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Orr’s Declaration testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’995 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36; Ex. 1001 (describing a mobile construction machine); Exs. 1005–1015 (disclosing aspects of mobile construction machine design).” slip op. at 24

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

    “Independent claim 45 uses “means-plus-function” language, reciting several such clauses. Ex. 1001, 14:31–50; see 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.10 10 We cite to the pre-AIA version of the statute applicable to the Challenged Claims. Means-plus-function claiming occurs when a claim term is drafted in a manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, which states: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6; Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). The parties do not dispute that § 112 ¶ 6 applies to the recited means-plus-function clauses in the Challenged Claims. See Pet. 16–20; PO Resp. 5–6 (implying that § 112 ¶ 6 applies in arguing that Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for construing certain means-plus-function terms).” slip op. at 25

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Turning to the corresponding structure, the Specification of the ’995 patent identifies only one structure that performs the recited function— actuator 44. The Specification states that “second actuator 44 is associated with the support device 40 and is adapted to maintain the same rotational direction of the one ground engaging unit 20 in each of the projecting and retracted positions.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–47; see id. at 4:56–60 (“[S]econd actuator 44 is connected to the lifting column 46 and is adapted to cause at least a portion of the lifting column 46 to rotate about a lifting column axis 48 that is oriented generally vertically relative to the work machine.”). The Specification at least suggests that actuator 44 does not need to be a rotary actuator, or, at least, that a linear actuator is an equivalent structure to a rotary actuator. For example, in describing “one of the preferred embodiments,” the Specification describes that “at least one of the first and second actuators 42, 44 is a rotary actuator,” suggesting that actuator 44 is not necessarily a rotary actuator. Ex. 1001, 4:61–62; see also id. at 5:17–21 (“These embodiments may be advantageously combined by employing a rotary actuator as described above as either or both of the first and second actuators 42, 44, and by positioning these actuators at the specified longitudinally spaced apart locations.”), 5:21–24 (“[I]t may also be preferable that at least the second actuator 44 be implemented using the rotary actuator construction and placed at the upper portion of the lifting column 46.” (emphasis added)); but see id. at Fig. 3 (depicting actuator 42 as a linear actuator). Accordingly, we find that the corresponding structure identified in the Specification for the recited function is a rotary or linear actuator. As such, we do not agree with Petitioner’s construction limiting the actuator to a rotary actuator. We also do not agree with Petitioner that the second actuator must be at the top portion of the lifting column. The Specification clearly identifies that the second actuator may be located “on the lifting column” “spaced apart from the first actuator 42,” and that locating the second actuator at the upper portion of the lifting column is merely a preferred location. See Ex. 1001, 5:8–24.” slip op. at 29

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Piccoli’s teachings to connect the second end of the first actuator to the swing arm as required by claim 30. In the Petition, the only evidence to support its modification is conclusory testimony from Mr. Orr. This testimony is accorded no weight. See Xerox Corp., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9. With respect to Petitioner’s reliance on Dubay as state-of-the-art evidence (for the first time in the Reply), we agree with Patent Owner that this argument is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Instead, Petitioner supplements it contentions by arguing that the linear actuator does not have to be attached to the lifting column to retract and extend Volpe’s leg assembly, and by citing to Dubay when Patent Owner argues that Petitioner provides no supporting evidence for its contentions. These responses are the type of “meaningfully distinct contention[s]” that signal that Petitioner is augmenting deficient contentions in the Petition with new arguments.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 7,523,995 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,523,995
• Microsoft Corporation v. Throughputer, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00574 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Stevens and Smetana, with Daly added for claim 2; claims 8–14 and 21–24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “science, computer engineering, or a related field, and 2-3 years of practical computer programming or engineering experience, including experience designing or researching parallel processing systems.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Smith’s testimony is based on a similar definition. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’353 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “h. Conclusion for Claim 1 Petitioner has persuasively shown that the combination of Stevens and Smetana teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also has put forth persuasive reasons for combining these references. Thus, regarding claim 1, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious over the combination of Stevens and Smetana.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “We find that Smetana teaches the implementation of multiplexers in hardware. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 2:35–37, 2:60–4:3, Fig. 2. We also find that Stevens teaches matrices/nodes 150/800 that are sometimes dedicated to a particular task. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 95, 97, 133– 134, 137, 190. Furthermore, Petitioner persuasively shows that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have implemented Stevens’s multiplexers 280 and 955 as hardware multiplexers based on the teachings of Smetana to obtain the benefits of reduced propagation delay and reduced power consumption. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–75; Ex. 1005, 1:13–18. We note that Stevens already describes the ACE as an integrated circuit hardware platform (see Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2–3, 5), which supports that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have expected success in implementing the components of the ACE, such as Stevens’s multiplexers, as hardware resources based on Smetana’s teachings. See Pet. 27 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 74–75, 111).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,318,353 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,318,353
• Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2020 · IPR2018-01254 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 11 and 24 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed combinations did not adequately establish the articulation limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenOther

    “of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. To prevail, Petitioner must prove 1 Our decision does not rely on any information deemed confidential by the parties. unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2017). This decision is a Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims 1–11 and 24 of the ’969 patent. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–10 of the ’969 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a). We also hold that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11 and 24 of the ’969 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not appear to dispute Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. In light of the record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record).” slip op. at 12

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

    “(Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Here, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identifies terms for construction or provides any proposed constructions. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 10; see generally Pet. Reply; Prelim. Resp. 11. Instead, the parties agree that claims of the ’969 patent should be construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 10. We determine that no claim term needs express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Knodel, “admitted that the tool base shown in Wallace’s figures is not designed to drive an endocutter that clamps and fires.” PO Resp. 36–37 (citing Ex. 2011, 24:20– 23). This admission deserves little weight, however, given that Wallace expressly discloses that “any suitable end effector 66 may be used” in its robotic surgery system depending on the surgical need, including clamps and staplers. Ex. 1008, 7:50–56; see also id. at 2:18–21 (“As used herein, the term ‘end effector’ means the actual working part of the surgical instrument and can include clamps, graspers, scissors, staplers, and needle holders, for example.”); Pet. Reply 18–20; see Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Obviousness “cannot be avoided simply by a showing of some degree of unpredictability in the art so long as there was a reasonable probability of success.”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,479,969 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,479,969

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.