• Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco NVNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 5, 2026 · IPR2025-00598 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–31 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the asserted combinations did not teach required claim limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “admissions by Patent Owner in litigation, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and five years of work experience in a related field” and that “[a]dditional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art (Petition, 5) at this time.” PO Resp. 6. On the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is uncontested and is consistent with the technology described in the ’347 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner accept[ed] the Petition’s claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 6. However, in the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues that “the claims of the ’347 Patent require no construction as they are valid under their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 6. Based on the complete record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Beel actually discloses the following: [0321] On the peripheral device 32 the video packets are received at the corresponding plug and play port, e.g. the USB port 11, read by the Human Interface Driver (HID) interface handler 13, unpacked to remove HID protocol headers in an unpacker 20 and then transmitted to the communications network by a transmitter 21. The network can be wireless for example WiFi or LiFi network. [0322] Having been routed over a communications network to the base unit 33, the incoming stream is read from the communications interface such as a WiFi access point 22, unpacked in an unpacker 25, decoded in a decoder 26 and then inserted into a suitable composition such as an OpenGL based composition in the compositor 29 for display on a central display device. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 321–322 (emphasis added to portions quoted by Petitioner). Patent Owner notes that “[t]he Petition mistakenly cites to ¶ 322 of Beel but quotes ¶ 321.” PO Resp. 20 n.3. However, it appears that Petitioner has grafted together a portion of paragraph 321 that introduces peripheral device 32 with a portion of paragraph 322, which discusses features of base unit 33. However, this grafting has been done in such a way as to convey (incorrectly) that peripheral device 32, not base unit 33, includes unpacker 25, decoder 26, and compositor 29 that process the first processed video data received by the first peripheral device to generate second video data. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony, which copies Petitioner’s incorrectly altered quotation to paragraph 322 of Beel, is unreliable as to this claim limitation and is entitled to no weight.4 Thus, Petitioner has no expert testimony on which to rely for this claim limitation.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “5 At the oral argument, when challenged on its reliance on paragraph 322, Petitioner argued that paragraph 321 of Beel teaches this limitation. Tr. 22:26–23:24. Petitioner did not make this argument in the Petition and, instead, raised it for the first time during oral argument; thus, it will not be considered. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Unless it chose to exercise its waiver authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b), the Board was obligated to dismiss Dell’s untimely argument given that the untimely argument in this case was raised for the first time during oral argument.”). Even if we were to consider this new argument, it would not be persuasive. As Patent Owner observes (PO Resp. 20), any processing performed by peripheral device 32 in paragraph 321 is on data received from the processing device and destined for the base station via the network, rather than data flowing in the direction of the first processed video data of claim 1.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,966,347 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,966,347
• Early Warning Services, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2026 · IPR2024-01221 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39–41, and 43 unpatentable because the cited grounds did not establish the required …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based barcode reader and not a laser-based barcode scanner because we are persuaded that claim language and Specification support that interpretation and also because Patent Owner persuasively shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term as such. Claim 1 recites an “image capture device configured to capture an image.” Ex. 1001, 16:24–25. The plain meaning of the claim term requires that the image be captured, not just scanned. The claim further requires “generating an output based on the information embedded in the image,” requiring that information is retrieved from the captured image. Id. at 16:32–33. A device that does not capture an image is not an “image capture device” under the plain language of the claim. A laser-based barcode scanner employs light reflected from a laser beam to “generate an electrical signal that corresponds to the bars and spaces in the barcode being scanned.” See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining in detail how laser-based barcode self-emitting a laser light across a code to be scanned, with a sensor tuned to capture the reflected light from the laser.”). It simply does not capture an image. slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. The field of the ’167 patent “relates generally to secure transactions, and more specifically, to methods and devices for providing secure identification, verification, and authorization using a portable secure device.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The ’167 patent seeks “to provide methods and devices that are capable of providing secure transactions in a more efficient manner.” Id. at 3:11–13. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our patentability analysis would be the same under Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Wang fails to disclose limitation 1[a]. Wang discloses a portable electronic authorization device (PEAD) that can be used as a self-checkout terminal. Ex. 1004 ¶ 115. In this context, Wang discloses By entering the UPC code or barcode using keypad on the PEAD or scanning in the UPC code or barcode using the input device built into the PEAD such as a barcode scanner or OCR reader, the PEAD can generate the receipt with the list of item prices through the wireless network and Internet by querying the item price using the barcode as the index for price lookup table which is Stored in a Server System. Id. (emphasis added). As discussed above (Section III.C.1), we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the claimed “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based device and not a laser-based barcode scanner. Petitioner does not contend that Wang’s disclosure of the barcode scanner necessarily refers to an imaging-based device, but argues that Wang’s disclosure is sufficient because “both imaging-based barcode scanners and laser-based barcode scanners constitute image capture devices.” Reply 11. In light of our claim construction above, we disagree.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang and Drummond. Pet. 30–43. 1. Drummond Drummond is a patent titled “Automated Banking Machine System and Method,” and “relates to an automated banking machine apparatus and system that are capable of use in a wide area network, and which provides a user with a remote electronic receipt or other record related to a transaction performed at the machine.” Ex. 1008, code (54), ¶ 2. Drummond discloses that its automated banking machine, may “initiate the sending of a non-paper transaction receipt to the customer,” “[t]he receipt may be sent using a wide area network, such as the Internet,” and “[t]he receipt may be an electronic receipt, for example a receipt in the form of an e-mail message.” Id. ¶ 247. 2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 For this obviousness ground, Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence as its Ground 1a (anticipation by Wang), discussed above, for the majority of claim limitations. See Pet. 33–43. Importantly, Petitioner relies solely on Wang as teaching independent claim limitations [1a], [23a], and [43b] relating to an image capture device and embedded information. Pet. 36, 41, 43. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to Ground 1a, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Wang and Drummond.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,167 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,167
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00748 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

  • 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)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89). Even considering Petitioner’s new theory, we find it unpersuasive because Petitioner does not explain adequately how the “determining a luminance value” recitation is met. Per Petitioner, Gallagher measures the coefficient of luminous intensity, but Petitioner does not identify a “luminance value” as recited in claim 15. Dr. Papanikolopoulos testifies that the coefficient of luminous intensity is not a luminance value: “As is well established, coefficient of luminous intensity—which is what Gallagher calculates—is a measurement of retroreflectivity (usually expressed in units of candelas, or millicandelas, per lux per square meter, i.e., cd/lx/m2), not luminance (usually expressed in candelas per square meter, i.e., cd/m2). Ex. 2023 ¶ 91. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does not contest this testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1030 ¶ 35. Thus, Petitioner’s new theory is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,335,255
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

  • 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)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,335,255
• Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Keenan did not disclose the claimed stored threats, and the obviousness combinations did not establish the mapping limitations or a reason to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “construction of “threat,” which we find in the context of the ’366 patent does not encompass “risk.” See supra § III.D.3.a.1 (discussing “‘Threats’ versus ‘Risks’”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s premise that “risk” includes “threats” or knowing risk allows for determination of threats is false, and belied by the parties’ experts who do not disagree on this distinction, namely that “risk” is not a “threat,” but rather represents the likelihood of a threat occurring compounded by the impact of such a threat on a given system (discussed above). See Ex. 2002, 24:3–25:5, 31:5–33:2 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, agreeing that “Risk = Likelihood x Impact”); Ex. 2009 ¶ 80; PO Sur-reply 9–10. Thus, we find unavailing Petitioner’s attempt to walk backwards from Keenan’s explicit disclosure of “risk” modeling into an anticipatory (explicit) disclosure of stored “threats” that may give rise to such risk. Viewing Keenan in the light agreed upon by the parties’ experts, where “risk” is a product of the “likelihood” of a threat occurring and the “impact” of such a threat on a given system, persuades us that although Keenan discloses “risk,” “types of risk,” and “risk ranking” (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 16:21–63), Keenan uses such “risk” as a given value without explicitly disclosing any underlying stored threats or use thereof. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 112 (“Keenan does not disclose a system for measuring risk. The risk for objects is determined before the objects are imported into the [Integrated Object Environment]. Keenan does not make that measurement.”). Indeed, in order to “store” “threats” in “one or more databases” as recited in claim 1, such “threats” must be identified (i.e., known) at some level of specificity to the system. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that Keenan explicitly discloses using “threats” or “storing” an identified “threat,” let alone storing such “threat” in a database along with its association with a particular threat model component, and even more so with a threat model component that itself is correlated with a third-party diagram component as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’366 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hurlbut (Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 10

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

    “43:21–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments (Pet. Reply 3–5), this “subset” feature shows that the “threats” stored in databases in claim 1 represent “potential events” that may or may not occur depending on the composition of a given system undergoing threat modeling—a system may implicate all stored threats, some of them, or even just one of them, leaving the remaining stored threats for use in preparing threat models for other systems. See PO Sur-reply 2–3 (discussing Figure 2 and arguing that “not every threat is necessarily included in the threat model”). We find the claim language itself supports interpreting “threats” as “potential events that, if they occur, can cause adverse effects to a target system.”” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Claim 1 recites, in part, “the one or more mapping files correlating the threat model components with [“third party diagram components”].” Ex. 1001, 43:30–35. Generally, from the standpoint of what claim 1 requires, the parties’ views of “mapping file” are in alignment. Claim 1 plainly recites that a “mapping file” (where a “file” in the context of computer systems is data itself) correlates data A with data B, and when construed in the context of the subject claim language, correlates threat model components (i.e., data A) with third party diagram components (i.e., data B). We find that this interpretation of “mapping files” is sufficient to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,713,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,713,366
• Sony Group Corp. (Japan) / Sony Corp. Of America et al. v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2024 · IPR2022-01544 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish sufficient reasons to combine the references in any of the three obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field with coursework in signal processing, plus two years of academic and/or industry experience in signal processing or a related field. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 2. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art, other references of record, and the ’961 patent specification.” slip op. at 7

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

    “district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning and contends that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)). Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for purposes of this Response only, all terms of the ᾽961 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 23. As Petitioner contends, it is not necessary Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Dr. Scordilis. Based on the record, Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient reason to arrive at the claimed invention and satisfy the burden of showing obviousness. As Patent Owner essentially argues, Cabot (and all references relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Scordilis) do not pertain to “quantizing a phase difference of the at least one overtone relative to the fundamental tone to embed at least one bit of the data to be embedded” as step 1C-2 requires. See PO Resp. 32–33. Petitioner also relies on Kudumakis to modify Srinivasan in asserting that step 1C-2 would have been obvious, but Petitioner’s reliance on Kudumakis is also faulty as explained below. See Pet. 22–27 (relying on Ex. 1006 (Cabot), Ex. 1007 (Kudumakis); Ex. 1028 (Risset), Ex. 1031 (Lipshitz), Ex. 1055 (“Cox-SSSW”); Ex. 1020 (“Cox- 1995” ); Ex. 1021 (“Wu”)). articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient reason to modify Srinivasan’s frequencies to embed a quantized phase difference between a fundamental and its harmonic into the harmonic as step 1C-2 requires. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“teachings of references can be combined only if there is some suggestion or incentive to do so”) (quoting ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As noted above, Dr. Scordilis states that Cabot merely “opens the venue for exploration” for an artisan of ordinary skill to “try to . . . explore” watermarks. Ex. 2011, 75:16–22. Dr. Scordolis’s testimony relates to an “obvious to try” rationale, but neither Dr. Scordilis’s testimony, nor Petitioner’s showing, satisfies the conditions to support that rationale. In particular, Dr. Scordilis does not testify, and Petitioner does not show, that the technique of embedding phase difference codes into a harmonic relative to its fundamental was one of “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” and a “known option[]” for hiding data. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (indicating that under an “obvious to try” rationale, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr Scordilis’s testimony. Dr. Scordilis does not rely on any references that “have a frequencies specifically.” See Ex. 2011, 90:4–8 (testifying such references are “[n]ot in [his] report”). Moreover, Dr. Scordilis testifies that “[t]he value . . . of Cabot’s work is that he points to the fact that even in this very controlled experiment, although phase is detectable in an A/B type of setup under many, many repetitions, it really opens the venue for exploration that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would try to capitalize and explore further to develop a watermark.” Id. at 75:16–22 (emphasis added). In summary, Dr. Scordilis testifies that no references (including Cabot) cited in his declaration discuss phase encoding of a harmonic phase relative to a fundamental phase for watermarking, and Cabot merely opens the door so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “try to . . . explore further to develop a watermark” using harmonic phase coding data. Id.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,289,961 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,289,961
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13

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

    “I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2024 · IPR2022-01222 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish a distinct server and network switch box in the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal and does not propose its own level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art). Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the wireless communication arts pertinent to the ’863 patent” and “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner argues that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” recited by claim 1 “should be understood to recite that a server is ‘configured with a controller’ and that it is the server that is ‘in communication with a plurality of network devices.’” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:1–4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s understanding of the phrase. Inst. Dec. 9. “Patent Owner does not concede that Petitioner’s construction [of a ‘server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of under any construction so it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve this IPR.” PO Resp. 14 n.1. Based on the full record, we determine that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” does not require express interpretation to resolve the parties’ dispute. 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 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find that the cited portions of Ahopelto describe a GRPS GSN or GGSN connects to data networks, such as an inter-operator backbone IP network, X.25 network, and IP network. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, Fig. 1. Based on the portions relied upon by Petitioner, we find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that its GGSN is “a server” and a separate and distinct “network switch box.” Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (“Ahopelto does not describe any details about a GGSN’s hardware/software”). We also find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that a GGSN has separate and distinct functionalities (1) for receiving a packet and determining the protocol of the encapsulated packet is separate and (2) for connecting to data networks. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 2008 ¶ 39 (“Ahopelto never mentions the term ‘server functionality’ or the term ‘routing functionality.’”).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s declarant also opines that the asserted server functionality includes controlling where a packet is routed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 77 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that Ahopelto’s GGSN exercises control over how a packet is routed, based on the protocol type (the ‘server functionality’ herein for simplicity of reference).”), ¶ 78 (“[T]he GGSN’s server functionality would exercise the disclosed control (the platform implementing the GGSN).”); Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4 (Petitioner’s declarant answering “Yes” and “Routing is about where to send a packet,” in response to whether it was correct that “deciding where to send a packet is an essential part of routing”). According to Petitioner’s declarant, the asserted server functionality includes, or overlaps with, aspects of a “GGSN routing process.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 78; Ex. 1013, 14:1– 3; Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4. Petitioner’s testimonial evidence does not show a clear distinction between the asserted server and routing functionalities to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a server functionality separate and distinct from a routing functionality in Ahopelto’s GGSN.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,863 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,863
• Kioxia Corporation / Kioxia America, Inc. v. Viasat, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01067 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8, 10–19, and 23–25 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not disclose the claimed decoding and forwarding functions, and the proposed modifications were not adequately supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “similar, and we adopt parts of each party’s description of a POSITA’s education and experience. We agree with Patent Owner that computer engineering and computer science are relevant fields of study. PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which describes systems, devices, methods, and software for forward error correction for a flash memory system, which may be integrated with a computer, server, or other computing device. Ex. 1001, 3:23–30. Although Dr. Koralek testifies that an undergraduate education would not have been sufficient for a person to acquire ordinary skill in the art relating the ’700 Patent (Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 7–9), that testimony does not adequately account for the knowledge relating to error correction a person could acquire through practical experience. For this reason, we agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Bagherzadeh that a bachelor of science is the appropriate level of education. PO Resp. 3; Ex. 2022 ¶ 31. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that a POSITA’s experience would have been limited to “hardware implementation.” PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which states that “embodiments may be implemented by hardware, software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description languages, or any combination thereof.” Ex. 1001, 10:26–28. For these reasons, we find that a POSITA would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two years of academic or industry experience in the design, development, or research of error correction in memory devices.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “mentioned in the Specification. In each instance, buffering is disclosed along with de-interleaving and decoding as actions performed by a decoder module or sub-module. The Specification’s disclosure that a decoder module can buffer data does not mean that buffering alone can constitute decoding. Nowhere does the Specification define “decode” to mean just “buffer.” The Specification’s use of the disjunctive, “or,” to connect these words (Ex. 1001, 6:11–14) is not enough to redefine the word “decode” to encompass buffering alone. Petitioner agrees that “[t]he ’700 Patent does not define the word ‘decode.’” Pet. Reply 2. “Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are ‘exacting.’” Id. (quoting GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In this case, defining “decode” to encompass mere buffering would be a departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as understood by a POSITA. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Koralek, agrees that, “aside from the ’700 patent, what a person of ordinary skill would understand decode to mean, it would not be just buffering. Decoding might include buffering, but buffering by itself would not be considered decoding to a person of ordinary skill.” Ex. 2023, 73:14–20. As Petitioner recognizes, “it is undisputed that ‘decoding’ is the opposite of ‘encoding.’” Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1019, 56:5–11); see also PO Resp. 7 (“The plain meaning of ‘decode’ implies undoing or reversing some prior encoding.”). This undisputed meaning is supported by the expert testimony, as well as dictionary definitions provided” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “ECC bits on a page-level rather than by sector was known before the ’700 Patent” and relies on Dr. Koralek’s opinion that “page-level encoding would have been an obvious implementation in view of Lee’s teachings.” Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1024 ¶ 45. Petitioner’s contention presents a new theory of unpatentability based on new evidence11 that exceeds the proper scope of a reply brief under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). For that reason, we need not consider it.12 Petitioner’s contention is not persuasive in any event. The challenge before us is anticipation, not obviousness. Petitioner’s new theory is not enough to show that Lee “must necessarily” distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data, as asserted in the Petition (Pet. 22) and required by our claim construction. 11 The new evidence includes Exhibit 1021 and paragraphs 45 to 47 of Dr. Koralek’s supplemental testimony, Exhibit 1024. 12 Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (stating “the Board acts within its discretion when it declines under section 42.23(b) to consider a new theory of unpatentability raised for the first time in reply” and holding that petitioner’s reply argument that a claim limitation would have been an obvious modification was a “meaningfully distinct contention” from the petition’s argument that the limitation was taught by the reference and that the new theory was not within the scope of a proper reply); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s decision not to consider an argument made on reply because in the original petition the challenger argued only that a reference disclosed a limitation, while in the reply the challenger argued that a relevant artisan would have considered it obvious to modify that reference to arrive at the limitation).” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above, we construe the phrase, “decode the received encoded data,” to mean “distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Lee’s page buffer 504 performs this function. Pet. 22. Petitioner identifies Lee’s page buffer 504 as the “decoding module” of claim 1 (Pet. 20–21), but does not show that page buffer 504 decodes the received encoded data by distinguishing error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,615,700 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,615,700
• Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. D/B/A Rakuten Rewards v. International Business Machines Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00438 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–28 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish that the asserted combination taught interactive execution of the ordering and annotation function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “annotation function . . . for comparing the user’s ‘user profile’ to the results obtained in the initial search.” Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–112, 116–117). Petitioner then concludes that, “[t]hus, Uchiyama discloses limitation [14d-2].” Id. at 41 (brackets in original) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157– 160). Petitioner also asserts that: At a minimum, it was obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to have Uchiyama’s system compare a user’s profile to the returned search results “interactively at the time of each user query” so as to achieve Uchiyama’s goal of returning “more meaningful” search results as “the database grows” and “the search results for the same query improve over time.” (Ex-1005 at ¶0026; Ex-1003-Crovella at ¶162.) Hence, Uchiyama also renders obvious limitation [14d-2]. Id. at 41–42 (brackets in original). However, Petitioner does not elaborate on or explain the basis for this conclusory assertion of obviousness. Id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 162 (Dr. Crovella stating the same). Although Petitioner’s analysis of limitation 14d-2 addresses the timing of the execution of the ordering and annotation function (the recited “at the time of each user query”), the analysis does not contain any form of the claim term “interactively,” other than when quoting the claim language. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, the Petitioner does not clearly and persuasively explain how “interactively” is disclosed or taught by Uchiyama.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, plus at least one year of experience in the design and/or implementation of computerized information retrieval technology,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field of computer science may serve as a substitute for experience in the field.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, [Patent Owner] adopts Petitioner’s 4 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 30–35). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “wherein the ordering and annotation function is executed interactively at the time of each user query” contains two requirements: 1) how the function is executed (“interactively”) and when the function is executed (“at the time of each user query”). Petitioner, in effect, reads out of the claim the “interactively” requirement. Petitioner offers no persuasive reason as to why that is correct. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.”). Petitioner, for its proposed claim construction of a single requirement, primarily relies on the Specification’s statement that “the ordering and Annotation step 345 is executed interactively, e.g., at the time of every user query.” Ex. 1001, 8:10–12; see Pet. Reply 12–13 (citing the same for the proposition that “[t]he ’676 patent specification also ties the terms together”); Tr. 16:3–12 (“it’s clear the specification is saying that interactively means at the time of every user query”). Petitioner’s reliance on this statement is misplaced. First, Petitioner agrees that the plain and ordinary meaning of “interactively” means “some sort of interaction with the system,” that the inventor did not utilize its own lexicography to redefine the term “interactively,” and that the Specification does not evidence a disavowal of claim scope. See Tr. 19:4–20. Consistent with that, Petitioner acknowledges that the quoted part of the Specification merely is an example, and is not defining “interactively” as limited to that example. See id. at 19:19–25. Second, Petitioner misreads the Specification as indicating that “at the time of every user query” is an example of “interactively.” See, e.g., id. at 21:25–22:1 (“the way I read this is at the time of every user query is modifying what interactively means”). Rather, the better reading of the Specification’s phrase “executed interactively, e.g., at the time of every user query” is that “at the time of every user query” (as opposed to some other time) is an example of when the function may be interactively executed, not that the two phrases on either side of the “e.g.” are synonymous. slip op. at 21

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

    “annotation function . . . for comparing the user’s ‘user profile’ to the results obtained in the initial search.” Id. at 40–41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111–112, 116–117). Petitioner then concludes that, “[t]hus, Uchiyama discloses limitation [14d-2].” Id. at 41 (brackets in original) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157– 160). Petitioner also asserts that: At a minimum, it was obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to have Uchiyama’s system compare a user’s profile to the returned search results “interactively at the time of each user query” so as to achieve Uchiyama’s goal of returning “more meaningful” search results as “the database grows” and “the search results for the same query improve over time.” (Ex-1005 at ¶0026; Ex-1003-Crovella at ¶162.) Hence, Uchiyama also renders obvious limitation [14d-2]. Id. at 41–42 (brackets in original). However, Petitioner does not elaborate on or explain the basis for this conclusory assertion of obviousness. Id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 162 (Dr. Crovella stating the same). Although Petitioner’s analysis of limitation 14d-2 addresses the timing of the execution of the ordering and annotation function (the recited “at the time of each user query”), the analysis does not contain any form of the claim term “interactively,” other than when quoting the claim language. See Pet. 39–42. Thus, the Petitioner does not clearly and persuasively explain how “interactively” is disclosed or taught by Uchiyama.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 6,785,676 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,785,676

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.