• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated Douglas–Mark and Hamilton-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 10. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. For this decision, as in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level, which is supported by credible testimonial evidence and is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Our decision would be the same, however, if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; PO Resp. 10. However, the parties contest two material claim-construction issues which we address below. To the extent that the parties’ positions depend on interpreting other claim language in a particular way, we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that limitation 1.2 must be performed before limitations 1.3 or 1.4. See Ex. 1001, 35:21–24. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citing Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The evidence suggests that a “target printer” is any printer that is ultimately selected for fabricating the object, and such a printer could send its configuration information either before or after that determination is made in limitation 1.2. This interpretation does not render the word “target” meaningless. At some point, a printer must be determined to be the target printer, which is the one intended to ultimately fabricate the three-dimensional object. But the target printer still exists, and is capable of being queried, before that determination is made. We find the examples in the ’774 patent pertinent to this question. The ’774 patent states that “the target printer may include more than one printer.” Ex. 1001, 18:66–67. In discussing the step of “query target printer for properties 306” (Fig. 3A), the ’774 patent states that “[i]n one aspect, numerous queries are sent to numerous printers, e.g., for use in selecting one or more of the printers as the target printer.” Id. at 19:8–10. Alternatively, “the query is sent to a printer that is not necessarily the target printer as described herein, e.g., when the query or information received from a response to the query is used for the selection of the target printer.” Id. at 19:11–14. Importantly, the second embodiment states that the queried printer “is not necessarily the target printer,” suggesting that the queried printer could be the target printer even before it is determined to be such. Id. at 19:11–12 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “target printer” can be determined after the query recited in limitation 1.3 or the reception of configuration information recited in limitation 1.4. Thus, the evidence does not impose an ordering between limitations 1.2 and 1.3 or between limitations 1.2 and 1.4. The evidence also does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the two reverse-order examples in the ’774 patent are unclaimed embodiments.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree that Petitioner’s arguments are based on impermissible hindsight, because they are based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself, as we discuss below. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,886,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,886,774
• Charter Communications, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2026 · IPR2024-01287 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 5 is unpatentable over Bernstein alone or with Tsuge; claims 1–3 and 6–11 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds fail to teach required limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or comparable degree or 2–3 years industry experience designing and/or maintaining back-end networking equipment.” Pet. 11. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not contest Petitioner’s recitation of the level of skill in the art, because even under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill,” Petitioner “has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.” Prelim. Resp. 17. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, finding that it was consistent with the ’982 patent and the asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Following the Institution Decision, both parties submitted proposed claim constructions in the district court stating that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2009, 3–4 (Petitioner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart); Ex. 2010, 7 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart). Patent Owner states in the Patent Owner Response that “[t]he parties now agree that the entire preambles of both claims 1 and 6 are limiting.” PO Resp. 17. In its Reply, Petitioner states that “whether the Board finds the phrase ‘service auto-configuration’” in the preamble to be limiting is “immaterial” because it “does not affect the analysis of whether the prior art cited in the petition invalidates [the challenged] claims.” Pet. Reply 5. At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it does not dispute that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting. Tr. 20:25–21:17, 23:15–17. Because the parties agreed in district court that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting, and also agree in this proceeding, we find that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 are limiting for purposes of this Decision. We will discuss the meaning of the preamble further in the sections below applying the prior art to the claims. See §§ III.A..4(a), III.A.7, III.C.1(a), III.C.7, infra.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we do not need to, and do not, construe any other claim terms to resolve the controversy 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))).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show that Bernstein recites a “service auto-configuration” method as recited in the preamble of claim 1. As discussed above, the parties agree that the preamble of claim 1, including the “service auto-configuration method” language, is limiting. See § II.B, supra. As we explained in the Institution Decision, the Petition does not set forth a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how the prior art discloses a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 11, 24; Inst. Dec. 32. Instead, the Petition merely explains how Bernstein teaches “a DOCSIS Provisioning of EPON (DPoE) system,” without explaining how it teaches a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 59). By failing to offer a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how this limitation is met by the prior art, the Petition fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art discloses or suggests this limitation.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,287,982 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,287,982
• Nokia Of America Corporation / AT&T Services, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00899 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 10, 11, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4, 12, 13, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 5. Also, neither party argues that the precise level of ordinary skill would be dispositive in this proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is undisputed, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’892 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:19–2:8.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The evidence of record, including the ’892 patent and its prosecution history,9 indicates that the ordinary and customary meaning of “transitioning . . . from . . . to” encompasses both direct and indirect transitions. Looking first to the claim language itself, the word “directly” appears in claims 1, 6, and 10, but not claim 14, presumptively suggesting that claim 14 was intended to more broadly capture systems with either direct or indirect transitions. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Holding otherwise would fail to give any effect to the word “direct” as it appears in claims 1, 6, and 10. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions methodologies that render phrases in claims superfluous).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “predictable and well-motivated variation of G.987.3, at the time of the claimed invention, to include a direct transition between the ONU’s two low-power states. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, . . . . If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce power consumption and would have looked to ways of modifying G.987.3 to further that design goal. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; see also Ex. 1007, 97 (“For a variety of reasons, it is desirable to reduce the power consumed by an ONU as much as possible . . . .”). We also credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that there were only a small number of ways to modify the state transitions in G.987.3’s ONU, and that it would have been obvious to consider those possibilities. Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Patent Owner does not contest this. Dr. Litvin concedes, for Patent Owner, that “there is no conceivable way the [ITU] did not consider the proposed transition” between the ONU’s two low-power states when drafting G.987.3, although he contends the standards body prohibited such direct transitions as “a conscious and reasoned design choice.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 108; see also id. ¶ 109 (opining that there were only four possible choices for transitions in the ONU, and the ITU “undoubtedly considered all of them, including the direct transition from . . . Listen and . . . Asleep”); PO Resp 24 (conceding that “G.987 explicitly considered the very direct transitions that Petitioner say would be used”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s additional or alternative argument that Röger would have motivated modifying G.987.3 by allowing the ONU, while in sleep mode, to periodically turn on its receiver and check for messages from the OLT, which would have been direct transitions between “first” and “second” states as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–22 & n.4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–84. The evidence suggests that modifying G.987 as Petitioner proposes would have been within the abilities of a person of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention—either to add a direct transition between Listen and Asleep states or to allow the ONU, while in its sleep (both transmitter and receiver off) mode, to periodically turn on its receiver temporarily to listen for polling messages from the OLT, as Röger teaches. Pet. 11–12, 14–15, 19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. We also agree with Petitioner that there would have been motivation” slip op. at 26

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

    “We find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments that it would have been a predictable and well-motivated variation of G.987.3, at the time of the claimed invention, to include a direct transition between the ONU’s two low-power states. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, . . . . If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce power consumption and would have looked to ways of modifying G.987.3 to further that design goal. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; see also Ex. 1007, 97 (“For a variety of reasons, it is desirable to reduce the power consumed by an ONU as much as possible . . . .”). We also credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that there were only a small number of ways to modify the state transitions in G.987.3’s ONU, and that it would have been obvious to consider those possibilities. Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Patent Owner does not contest this. Dr. Litvin concedes, for Patent Owner, that “there is no conceivable way the [ITU] did not consider the proposed transition” between the ONU’s two low-power states when drafting G.987.3, although he contends the standards body prohibited such direct transitions as “a conscious and reasoned design choice.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 108; see also id. ¶ 109 (opining that there were only four possible choices for transitions in the ONU, and the ITU “undoubtedly considered all of them, including the direct transition from . . . Listen and . . . Asleep”); PO Resp 24 (conceding that “G.987 explicitly considered the very direct transitions that Petitioner say would be used”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s additional or alternative argument that Röger would have motivated modifying G.987.3 by allowing the ONU, while in sleep mode, to periodically turn on its receiver and check for messages from the OLT, which would have been direct transitions between “first” and “second” states as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–22 & n.4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–84. The evidence suggests that modifying G.987 as Petitioner proposes would have been within the abilities of a person of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention—either to add a direct transition between Listen and Asleep states or to allow the ONU, while in its sleep (both transmitter and receiver off) mode, to periodically turn on its receiver temporarily to listen for polling messages from the OLT, as Röger teaches. Pet. 11–12, 14–15, 19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,806,892 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,806,892
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,226,090
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,798,509
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2024 · IPR2023-01020 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Lyren and Reif; the Board did not reach the Clement, Osman, and Sauk ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art or “POSITA”] in the relevant timeframe (2015 to 2019) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science/engineering, music technology, or a related field, and at least two years of industry experience, or academic research experience, in virtual/augmented reality, audio engineering, or an equivalent. Additional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “1. environment Patent Owner initially argues that “environment” should mean “physical surroundings in which a user operates.” PO Resp. 6. Petitioner responds that the plain meaning of environment “encompasses physical and virtual environments.” Reply 2. During the hearing, Patent Owner conceded that Petitioner’s construction for environment is correct. Tr. 49:24–50:10. We agree with this construction and apply it here. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 28:16 (referring to “a physical or a virtual environment”). “Environment” encompasses physical and virtual environments.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “insufficient to support the concept of alerting a user that the user is leaving a virtual environment. In so deciding, we need not address the parties’ contentions about boilerplate. Regardless of whether the sentence at 168:15–16 of the ’140 application is boilerplate, we agree with Petitioner that “there is no suggestion of the specific claimed combination.” Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1146 ¶ 82). That is, if one views the “[e]xamples herein” from Figure 6 as taking place “in computer rendered spaces (VR)” or “in partially computer rendered spaces (AR),” there is still no disclosure of alerting a user that a user is leaving a virtual environment. See Ex. 1028, 168:15–16. For instance, if Alice in the Figure 6 example mentioned above is entering a virtual car instead of a real car, Alice is still in a virtual environment. See id. at 120:13–27. Thus, relying on Figure 6 to take place “in computer rendered spaces (VR)” does not support alerting that a user is leaving those virtual spaces. See id. at 168:15–16. Petitioner also correctly identifies a problem with analogizing the Alice example to a virtual environment—namely, it would no longer make sense to give Alice an audible warning. See Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1146 ¶ 82). In the example, Alice’s earphones switch from binaural sound to mono sound when Alice enters a real car because “[t]he state where Alice is located . . . prohibits drivers from localizing sound while driving a motorized vehicle.” Ex. 1028, 120:15–18. But it would not make sense (nor does the ’140 application disclose) for a state to prohibit Alice to localize sound while driving a virtual vehicle. We therefore find compelling Petitioner’s argument, supported by the testimony of Dr. Roginska, which we credit, that there is no “disclosure that 3D audio would not be permitted in a 3D virtual space.” Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1146 ¶ 82). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s second support argument fails.10” slip op. at 18

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

    “One benefit Petitioner proposes to support a rationale to combine is that a POSITA “would have implemented this feature to help protect the users from injury by bumping, hitting, tripping over, etc., real-world objects when moving around while viewing the virtual environment in the HMD (i.e., a type of head-mounted WED).” Id. at 43–44 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90, 251–254). Petitioner provides additional argument and evidence supporting a motivation to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success. See id. at 42–46. We agree that, in the combination, a POSITA would have implemented Lyren’s audible alerts to alert the user that the user is leaving Reif’s safe zone (and thus the virtual environment) to help keep users safe. Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 250–268). We also agree with Petitioner’s articulated benefit that the combination would “help protect the users from injury by bumping, hitting, tripping over, etc., real-world objects when moving around while viewing the virtual environment in the HMD (i.e., a type of head-mounted WED).” Id. at 43–44. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Lyren and Reif discloses each limitation of claim 14, as well as similar limitations of claims 1 and 7, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Lyren and Reif in the manner proposed, with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,448,184 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,448,184
• Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00806 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 9–12, and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over either Roberts and Asokan or Suumäki; claims 6–8 and 19 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Schmidt’s testimony, has proposed that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a degree in computer engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, along with 2 years of professional experience in the fields of networking and network-based systems or applications, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience,” and would have been “aware of and generally knowledgeable about how devices were provisioned onto wireless networks, along with standards applicable to well-known methods for communication such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and NFC available at the time the ’615 patent was filed.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by 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 for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we considered the assertions of Petitioner that the terms of the ’615 patent’s claims do not require further construction and can be afforded their plain and ordinary meaning. Dec. to Inst. 7 (citing Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–82). Patent Owner also does not assert any express constructions. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. Given the lack of controversy, we need not explicitly adopt or discuss any explicit constructions in this decision. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenMixed

    “that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 21

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Although Petitioner is correct that Roberts discloses different embodiments for conveying configuration information, those embodiments are distinct. See Ex. 1004, that the section of the Petition discussing claim 6 does not discuss the combination of embodiments; it merely asserts what would have been obvious in the context of the cited embodiment. See Pet. 36–37. See, e.g., In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), headnote 4, “Whether a rejection of a patent claim for obviousness is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” See also, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. IPR2023-00342, 2024 WL 3165359, at *31 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (Distinguishing Stephan for simultaneous actions). Claim 6 depends on claim 1, and any discussion of claim 6, explaining its obviousness, must consider the obviousness case for the independent claim in its analysis. Petitioner’s observation that Roberts is agnostic as to how network configuration information is conveyed does not relieve Petitioner of the requirement of making that case in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,050,615 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,050,615
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 31, 2024 · PGR2023-00016 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “B. Claims 1–20 of the ’705 Patent Petitioner argues that claims 1–20 of the ’705 patent have an effective” slip op. at 19

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 11,297,705 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,297,705
• Magic Leap, Inc. v. Percept Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00494 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 11, 17, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Mann ’895 and Pemer.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Now, after institution, Patent Owner does not challenge the Petition’s formulation of ordinary skill, or address the level of ordinary skill at all. See PO Resp. generally. Accordingly, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill is supported persuasively by the testimony of Dr. LaViola, and is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’929 patent and the prior art of record. We therefore apply Petitioner’s formulation in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1006 ¶ 32 (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that if the eye is not “alive” (id. ¶ 27) then the eye will remain “stationary” (id. ¶ 32) as Pemer operates its light sources 112 and 114, so the eye will “not appear in the difference image” (id.) at all. Patent Owner’s counsel agreed with these findings, and characterized the resulting difference image of an eye that is not alive as a “null pattern” or a “null image.” Tr. 24:9–24, 28:15–24, 33:16–34:5. Patent Owner’s counsel argued that such a null difference image may be used to authorize a user in Pemer. That is, counsel argued that when Pemer determines “the eyes are dead,” Pemer “still does the comparison with the database” and “if there’s a match, you know, like a null pattern, I guess, produced from the dead eye . . . it’s still granted the sight license [i.e., user authorization].” Tr. 24:17–24, 33:16–34:8. In particular, according to counsel, Pemer’s two light sources 112 and 14 cause “reflective [sic ‘reflexive’]” eye movement6 if the eye is alive, such that an unlicensed user “can’t fake the null pattern from a dead eye, so it still works.” Id. at 24:24–25:6. Similarly, when asked “how is Pemer then going to use the null image to authenticate the person?”, counsel responded that “the null image would be unique to that [authorized] user” and a “thief can’t do anything to prevent his or her eye from moving” in response to Pemer’s lights sources, so the thief “wouldn’t get a null comparison image to authenticate against” such that “the null pattern would still be unique to a wearer with a dead eye.” Id. at 28:17–29:15. Patent Owner’s counsel’s foregoing argument is not supported by Pemer. The Pemer disclosures cited by counsel state only that Pemer “indicates whether the eye (E) is alive” based on a null image resulting from lack of eye movement. Ex. 1006 ¶ 27 (emphasis added). Pemer does not disclose or suggest that a null image is used to authenticate a user. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26, 27, 30, 35 (cited at PO Sur-reply 13–14). Indeed, in a disclosure not cited by Patent Owner, Pemer states its “iris feature detector . . . can be used in identification and authentication systems” including “identification systems that only respond to a live eye.”” slip op. at 37

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

    “between eye movement and activation of circuitry, however, they do so in a permissive rather than a limiting fashion. That is, such a relationship is described as an “example” that “could be used” in “a preferred embodiment,” rather than a definitional or otherwise limiting description of the claim term “responsive to.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 8 (“[T]he patentee did not provide the term any other or exceptional meaning in the specification of the ’929 patent.”); Tr. 25:21–26:9 (Patent Owner’s counsel admitting it would be “improper” to cite the ’929 patent specification as “limit[ing] the claim”). We discern nothing in these disclosures that would limit the claimed response to require a cause and effect relationship. We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the specification into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“particular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect”); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.”).” slip op. at 17

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

    “We conclude Petitioner’s asserted motivations for combining Mann ’895 and Pemer to practice the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, as discussed above in Section III.F.4(i), the eyewear of Mann ’895 includes an iris scanner for activating circuitry in order to implement Mann’s sight license feature. Pemer, as discussed above in Section III.F.4(ii), discloses an iris scanner that authorizes a user responsive to eye motion of the user. We determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to combine these disclosures such that the eyewear of Mann ’895 employs an iris scanner that activates the eyewear circuitry responsive to eye motion of user, for the reasons asserted by Petitioner as summarized above in this Section which we adopt as our own. For example, we determine now, as we did in the Institution Decision, that a person of ordinary skill in the art desiring to use the eyewear of Mann ’895 would understand that “an iris scanner” was one option for implementing Mann’s sight license feature, yet Mann ’895 does not provide any details concerning the structure or operation of this iris scanner. Ex. 1005, 11:21–25; see Inst. Dec. 26. It makes sense, therefore, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to other references to provide such implementation details, and would have concluded Pemer’s iris scanner was a good option, because it would provide the computational advantages described in Pemer and cited by Petitioner. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4–5, 25; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–58.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 9,010,929 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,010,929
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Corrigent CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00169 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); claims 11 and 23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Relying on Dr. Houh’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the networking art that is pertinent to the ’431 patent, including network communications techniques and bandwidth management methodologies,” and “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications including the use of logical topologies and bandwidth management. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 3. Because Petitioner’s articulation of that level of skill is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’431 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:5–6:14.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We see no significant difference between Petitioner’s proposed construction of in response to as “using” and Patent Owner’s proposed construction as “using information from.” Thus, it does not appear that the construction of in response to is genuinely in controversy. Thus, we need not construe the term for this decision. 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.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that we need to interpret any other claim language, we address that language below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Considering the evidence of record on both sides, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that Baker teaches a “mapping” as recited in limitation 1.4. Baker’s disclosure of a “mapping” is explicit. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 69, 83. And the evidence shows that this mapping occurs “in advance of a communication,” and may, for example, take place in the head node as part of the Administer Ring routine. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–56, 76. That intermediate rings are ultimately configured to simply forward traffic “according to preconfigured rules” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 87) rather than to perform more complicated routing has no pertinent bearing on the process corresponding to the recited “mapping” step, which occurs “in advance” of the communication and any such forwarding (id. ¶ 76).” slip op. at 26

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

    “allocating bandwidth as part of its resources and that, in light of Wright, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make this allocation for each of the links in of the physical topology (see Ex. 1006 ¶ 18 (“bandwidth allocation at each link”)) using information from both (1) the bandwidth requirements of Baker’s logical connections and (2) the mapping between Baker’s logical and physical topologies. As Petitioner persuasively argues, we find that Wright’s teaching of further details on ensuring the availability of bandwidth, in a similar context, would have been sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wright’s teachings into Baker’s method. We also determine that whether Wright, itself, teaches a mapping step is not the determining factor because Petitioner relies on Baker, not Wright, for teaching mapping limitation 1.4. Nevertheless, Wright does teach allocating bandwidth using the same information that would be available as a result of Baker’s mapping, including the logical (“restricted”) topology and the physical links associated with that topology. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that allocating bandwidth to the physical links (step 510 of Figure 5) requires knowing which physical links correspond to Wright’s restricted topology. See Pet. 36; Pet. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1007 ¶ 17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–96; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 49–51. We also disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Baker’s method to apply Wright’s teachings on bandwidth allocation, such as how Baker’s head node N0 would have been modified. See PO Resp. 31–32. Based on the level of ordinary skill and the level of detail in Baker, Wright, and the ’431 patent, and crediting Dr. Houh’s testimony, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that such modification would have been within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 17–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–46, 48). And we agree with Petitioner that modifying Baker with Wright’s teachings would have been “nothing more than the combination of known elements . . . according to known methods . . . to yield predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,330,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,330,431

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.