- PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00015 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 over all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and declining to deny institution under §325(d).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons explained below, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“subject matter. Pet. 40–42. As noted above, Petitioner argues that Cheng discloses that frame 20 supports touch panel 10 using support 50. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 142). Petitioner relies on Han for teaching the parabolic curvature that is recited in limitation f, and Petitioner relies on Zhao for teaching a process that induces curvature during installation of the panel. See Pet. 27 (“[I]t would have been obvious for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to combine the touch screen display device and frame elements of Cheng, with the parabolically curved touch screen elements of Han and the curvature-inducing frame elements of Zhao.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 118)).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“2. Advanced Bionics Part Two In the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments. It informs, therefore, the petitioner’s showing under factors (e) and (f), which focus on the petitioner’s evidence of previous Office error regardless of the context in which the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented. For example, if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f). On the other hand, if the alleged error is a disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office, then ordinarily the petitioner’s required showing of material error must overcome persuasively that specific finding of record. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10–11. For the reasons explained below, we find that Petitioner has shown the Office erred.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“had “at least a bachelor-of-science or comparable degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent discipline and at least five years of experience designing touch sensors, provided that the educational level can offset the experience level, and vice versa.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23–24). Patent Owner does not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the Preliminary Response. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’935 patent and the asserted prior art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least.”” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,775,935 - PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00014 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 are obvious over Cheng, Han, and Zhao.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim, and we institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’335 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“limitation, where it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art “to modify Cheng’s plate to incorporate Han’s parabolic touch screen curvature along Ax and Ay directions to improve touch detection accuracy.” Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 165). Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to modify Cheng’s frame with Zhao’s curved mounting surfaces and frame, which would induce curvature into the plate. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1; Ex. 1005, Fig. 2; Ex. 1012, Fig. 1; Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 166–167). Petitioner argues that “Cheng’s modified curved plate touch surface would be curved relative to a flat plane defined in part by the short and long edges of frame 20.” Id. at 50. Petitioner asserts that “[a] flat plane would be defined (at least in part) by Cheng’s modified curved edges,” as shown in annotated Figure 1 of Zhao, reproduced below. Id.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“the “focus” of factor (c) and “informs” the petitioner’s showing under factors (e) and (f). As to factor (c), Petitioner asserts, and the record shows, Han, Cao, Shin, and Zhao were only listed or cited to in IDSs and were not addressed in any Office Actions. See Ex. 1032. Further, as Petitioner notes, there were 810 total references, and these references were cited in a single IDS containing 129 additional references. Id. at 76–82; Ex. 1031, code (56). Petitioner further points out that the record reflects that the Examiner only initialed the IDSs, which contained these many references, and did not issue Office Actions, which is sufficient to demonstrate that there is no evidence that the asserted art was substantively evaluated during examination. See Pet. Prelim Reply 3–5. As Advanced Bionics recognizes, a showing of material error varies depending on the degree to which the previously-presented art was substantively addressed by the Office. Advanced Bionics at 10–11. Turning to factor (e), as Petitioner notes, the record is silent as to how the Examiner viewed the prior art listed in IDSs which is asserted here. We recognize that it is difficult to characterize error in a silent record. In this light, we find that Petitioner’s assertion that the Examiner failed to adequately consider the references, which should have resulted in an Office Action because the references clearly disclose the ’335 patent claimed subject matter, serves as sufficient identification of error under factor (e). Pet. Prelim. Reply 5. Moreover, as discussed above and relevant to factor (f), the evidence presented in the Petition is meritorious, which further demonstrates that the combination of the cited prior art was overlooked during prosecution. Accordingly, under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of trial under § 325(d).” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner, except for the inclusion of “at least,” because that articulation is consistent with the ’335 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,281,335 - PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00013 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2, 5–7, and 9–15 are obvious over Chen ’975 and Klein.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“At this juncture, we do not find support for Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the plain meaning of the term “sealing element” to include a carve-out of “protection from some, but not necessarily all, dirt, water and other contaminants.” First, we discount Petitioner’s reliance on Patent Owner’s contentions in a related litigation for this interpretation—the claim term in the litigation is for a different patent and relates to a different term. See Ex. 1011, 71. Second, Petitioner’s references to the ’338 patent Specification for the support of this interpretation are directed to sealing window 126, and in the cited descriptions of it, we do not discern any support for the limited view that the protection provided is only from “from some” contaminants. Ex. 1001, 8:12–19, 16:27–34, 16:61–66 (cited in Pet. 42). Instead, the Specification states that “sealing window 126 provides sealing” and “[t]his means sealing window 126 prevents ingress of dirt, water and other contaminants into the interior of the touch sensing apparatus 100.” Ex. 1001, 16:30–33 (emphasis added). This description appears to be consistent with the ordinary meaning of “seal.” For instance, “seal” is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary10 as “means of preventing the passage of gas or liquid into or out of something, esp. at a place where two surfaces meet.” Ex. 3001, 6.d. Accordingly, on this preliminary record, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposed carve-out for the ordinary meaning of the term; instead, for the purposes of this decision we use of the ordinary meaning of the term “sealing element” as an element to provide sealing (preventing the passage of contaminants). The parties are invited to provide additional briefing on this issue during trial.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Klein’s optical overlay 10 in the touch display of Chen ’975 for several reasons. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner asserts that Chen ’975 does not disclose the effectiveness of filter strip 44 as a barrier to contaminants and that the reference provides only minimal details on how to implement filter strip 44. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to Klein, which discloses more details on optical overlay 10, including suitable materials. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Specifically, Petitioner points to how Klein discloses features of mounting and assembly and discloses how the optical overlay 10 functions in a way that “[s]ignals from the transmitters 34 may be collimated by the lens 42 of the outer wall 16 on one side of the overlay 10 and focused onto a receiver 36 by the lens 42 on the opposite side of the overlay 10.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:37–39, 7:34–38). Petitioner contends that these implementation details are missing from Chen ’975 and that a person of ordinary skill in the would have therefore been motivated to implement Chen ’975’s filter strip 44 using the optical overlay 10 disclosed in Klein. Id. When discussing groove and gasket use in Klein, Petitioner asserts that person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Chen ’975’s filter strip 44 with the features of Klein’s optical overlay 10 to achieve this ‘sealing or weatherproofing.’” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this sealing/weatherproofing would have advantageously enabled Chen ’975’s filter strip 44 to provide “a more robust system that would last longer and/or require less maintenance (e.g., putting in new emitters/detectors when the old ones break)”; “usability in less hospitable environments that may have more contaminants (e.g., outdoors)”; “better performance (e.g., detectors/emitters operating at peak performance without contaminants”; and “the ability to collimate the light from the emitters and focus to at the detectors.” Id. at 35–36.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“[a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”); see also Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph) (listing factors to consider in evaluating the applicability of § 325(d)) (“Becton, Dickinson”). The non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” of Advanced Bionics under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson at 17–18. “If, after review of factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office.” Advanced Bionics at 10.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,281,338 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Kioba Processing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00147 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lauper or obvious over Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443; claim 23 is obvious over Lauper and Fu, with or without the ISO standards.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner presents the following assessment as to the level of skill in the art: 7 Neither party presents any objective indicia of non-obviousness. As Mr. Zatkovich explains, for purposes of the ’792 Patent, a POSITA[8] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with point-of-sale and payment processing systems, credit card and smartcard payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–103; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner offers claims construction for the following terms: “transaction controller” (claims 8–23); “smartcard chip” (claims 8, 9); “said processor” (claims 10, 14, 25); “mobile user interface device” (claims 8–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21). Pet. 11–15. For purposes of instituting trial, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the above-noted terms. Inst. 8 Person of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. 10–12. Patent Owner has offered no challenges to any of those claim constructions as a part of this proceeding. After reviewing the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions. See Ex. 1001, 31:39–54; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–100; Pet. 12–15. For convenience, we reproduce them in table format below:” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the record and determine that Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability based on (1) Lauper alone, and, (2) Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443, find ample evidentiary support in the disclosures of the prior art. In particular, we are satisfied that Petitioner demonstrates that claims 8–22 are anticipated by Lauper and also rendered obvious based on Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443. See Pet. 16–64. We also credit Mr. Zatkovich’s unrefuted testimony offered in support of those proposed grounds of unpatentability. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318–456. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown that all the limitations of claims 8–22 are accounted for by either Lauper alone, or, alternatively, by Lauper taken with ISO 7816–4 and ISO 14443. We also determine that Petitioner has set forth adequate reason to combine the teachings of the prior art, with a reasonable likelihood of success in combining those teachings. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–22 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have considered the record and determine that Petitioner’s proposed grounds of unpatentability based on (1) Lauper alone, and, (2) Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443, find ample evidentiary support in the disclosures of the prior art. In particular, we are satisfied that Petitioner demonstrates that claims 8–22 are anticipated by Lauper and also rendered obvious based on Lauper, ISO 7816–4, and ISO 14443. See Pet. 16–64. We also credit Mr. Zatkovich’s unrefuted testimony offered in support of those proposed grounds of unpatentability. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318–456. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown that all the limitations of claims 8–22 are accounted for by either Lauper alone, or, alternatively, by Lauper taken with ISO 7816–4 and ISO 14443. We also determine that Petitioner has set forth adequate reason to combine the teachings of the prior art, with a reasonable likelihood of success in combining those teachings. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8–22 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,792 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,792 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Kioba Processing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00146 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 24–31 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lauper and, alternatively, as obvious over Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner presents the following assessment as to the level of skill in the art: As Mr. Zatkovich explains, for purposes of the ’792 Patent, a POSITA[7] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with point-of-sale and payment processing systems, credit card and smartcard payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–103; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner offers claim constructions for the following terms: “smartlink module” (claims 1 and 24); “the module” (claims 2–7 and 25–31); “smartcard chip” (claims 1, 5, 24, and 26–31); and “said smartcard processor chip” (claims 2, 5, and 7). Pet. 11–15. For purposes of instituting trial, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the above-noted terms. Inst. Dec. 10–12. Patent Owner has offered no challenges to any of those claim constructions as a part of this proceeding. Upon review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions as a part of this Final Written Decision. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67– 78–88; Pet. 12–15. For convenience, we reproduce them in table format below: Claim Terms Petitioner’s Proposed Constructions “smartlink module” and “the “a device that includes (1) a module” processor, (2) a wireless data channel to wirelessly communicate transaction data between said processor and a third party terminal, and (3) a second data channel electronically coupled to a mobile communication device.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69–70). “smartcard chip” and “said “a device including a processor and smartcard processor chip”” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“integrated circuit (communication controller 21’ . . . includes a processor and memory and processor executable code for providing data processing capability” and that a skilled artisan would understand that integrated circuit “includes all of the components called out in the claims the ’792 Patent which would be included in a ‘smartcard chip.’” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 18, 22, 23, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–172, 179–190). On the record, we are satisfied that Lauper’s integrated circuit constitutes the claimed smartcard chip. slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“does not constitute a smartcard chip, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA (as Ground 2) to modify Lauper to replace the ‘integrated circuit (communication controller 21)’ with a smartcard chip that conforms to the ISO standards.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 178–190) (emphasis omitted).8 In so contending, Petitioner points to disclosure in Lauper that it is “an aim of the present invention to propose a mobile telephone that is suited for the transmission of data with external devices according to a plurality of different standards.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 5) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner also relies on the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich discussing the use of smartcard chips as a part of the ISO standards, such as ISO 7816-4 and ISO 14443, for the type of operations and functions disclosed in Lauper. Id. at 8 Petitioner makes the same alternative argument in connection with the “smartcard chip” recitation in independent claim 24. See Pet. 60–61. 32–34 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 39–41, 42–45 124–125, 152, 174, 175, 177, 191, 192, 193; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 25, 32). Petitioner further explains that a skilled artisan would have had adequate reason to combine the teachings of Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443, with a reasonable likelihood of success in so combining those teachings. See id. We also are satisfied that Petitioner also accounts for the smartcard chip requirement of the claims as a part of the ground based on Lauper, ISO 7816-4, and ISO 14443.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,792 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,792 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Dali Wireless Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00820 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Wu, alone for claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–14, and 16–21, and with Cannon for claims 4, 11, 15, and 22.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, the Board construes claims using the same” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“reasoning belies its conclusion. That Kabemoto and Bauman address the same problem and that Bauman’s cache was a known way to address that problem is precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine under KSR and our precedent.” slip op. at 85
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelNot reached
“III. RULE ESTOPPEL Petitioner asserts that estoppel applies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3) based on a prior adverse judgment with respect to a related patent. See Pet. 2–6. Patent Owner disagrees that rule estoppel applies. PO Resp. 21–22. Based on Petitioner’s showing of obviousness and common law collateral estoppel with respect to the DAU and digital representation of radio resources limitations of the challenged claims as indicated above, we do not reach alleged estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3).” slip op. at 97
Patent outcomesUS 11,006,343 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,006,343 - Textron Specialized Vehicles, Inc. v. SZ Dji Technology Co. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01198 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–17 were unpatentable over the asserted Takashi, Onishi, and Kim grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review. A. Related Matters The parties identify the following related district court litigation” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, along with 1–2 years of experience in any of the fields of power electronics, motor control systems, and battery systems for electric motor applications. Pet. 8. Further, Petitioner asserts that additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged Petitioner’s definition for an ordinarily skilled artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage, Petitioner’s 2 JP 1994253415 A (Ex. 1005). Certified Translation of which is Ex. 1004. All cites to Takashi are to its certified translation (Ex. 1004) unless otherwise noted. 3 JP201193653A (Ex. 1007). Certified Translation of which is Ex. 1006. All cites to Onishi are to its certified translation (Ex. 1006) unless otherwise noted. 4 US 8,330,419 B2 (Ex. 1008). definition appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and in the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction The Petition and the Preliminary Response do not request that we expressly construe any claim term. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Further, on this record, we determine that no claim term requires an express construction for the purpose of determining whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As mentioned, Petitioner argues that Takashi’s use of duty setting means to read pre-calculated command duties stored in memory discloses “calculating a compensation amount.” Pet. 19. Petitioner, however, does not explain why reading pre-calculated command duties stored in memory constitutes calculating command duties based on a present electrical parameter. Id. at 19–21. Dr. Zane similarly does not provide such an explanation. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 64–69. The term “pre-calculated,” given its ordinary usage, indicates that the duty cycles have been calculated before they have been read from memory, which means they are not calculated based on a present electrical parameter. Thus, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that reading pre-calculated command duties stored in memory constitutes calculating command duties based on a present electrical parameter.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,640,224 - PTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01217 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all asserted grounds challenging claims 1–23, finding a reasonable likelihood of proving at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The Petition, to justify institution of review, must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has met this standard and institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, along with 1–2 years of experience in the field of GPS, location-based-services, and/or geofencing. Pet. 11. Further, Petitioner asserts that additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged Petitioner’s definition for an ordinarily skilled artisan. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage, Petitioner’s definition appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this preliminary record, we determine that the term “vehicle restriction region” is not limited to regions that have an area where a vehicle is excluded from entry or warned upon transgression. The dispute between the parties regarding “vehicle restriction region” specifically concerns the meaning of the word “restriction,” in particular whether “restriction” requires the exclusion of vehicles from entry or a warning upon transgression. Pet. 18–37; Prelim. Resp. 5–24. The parties are not disputing whether the asserted prior art discloses vehicles or regions. Pet. 18–37; Prelim. Resp. 5– 24. The Specification teaches that the term “restriction” is not so limited. For example, the Specification discloses that the term “flight restriction zone” “may refer to any region in which it is possible to limit or affect operation of an aerial vehicle.” Ex. 1001, 4:8–11 (emphasis added). This disclosure does not require the exclusion of entry of an aerial vehicle or a warning upon transgression. Further, the Specification teaches that flight restriction strip 2104 in region 2100 in Figure 21 may permit flight of the UAV while other flight restriction strips may prevent flight of the UAV. Id. at 29:20–22. This disclosure further does not require the exclusion of entry of a vehicle or a warning upon transgression. To the contrary, the Specification describes the latter (an alert) as an optional addition, and, as described above, flight restriction strip 2104 can expressly permit flights. Id. at 29:26–31. In light of the Specification’s definition of a “flight restriction zone” as “any region in which it is possible to limit or affect operation of an aerial vehicle,” it would appear that the proper construction of “vehicle restriction zone” is “any region in which it is possible to limit or affect operation of a vehicle.” Ex. 1001, 4:8–11.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for the preamble of claim 1. First, on this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that Humphries’s geofenced area constitutes a vehicle restriction region because it is a region in which it is possible to limit or affect operation of a vehicle. Pet. 19. Humphries describes the geofenced regions as areas in which tracked objects are to be confined. Ex. 1004, 1:44–50.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,462,116 - Google LLC v. Mira Advanced Technology Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 20, 2023 · IPR2022-00742 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over Dunton, Barchi, and Bedingfield.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Here, Petitioner asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art “in the technology field of the ’854 Patent had a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent course of study, as well as 2 or more years of academic or industry experience in the field of wireless communication devices and location-based services.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Patent Owner “generally agrees with Petitioner” as to the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not propose any changes to Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 8. Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification currently before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For purposes of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (as amended Oct. 11, 2018). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner “interpret[s] all claim terms in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner has not put forth any arguments in its papers related to claim construction.13 See PO Resp. 2. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. 13 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel indicated that a formal claim construction would be useful, but he also stated that “it’s too late to do anything like claim construction.” Tr. 43:1–6, 34:8–12. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s comments at the oral hearing, we find that the issues in the case are amenable to resolution without an express claim construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s assertions. We find Petitioner’s rationale for the combination to be well supported. Petitioner points out that “Dunton itself states that ‘[t]echniques to improve management of [] tasks may result in more productivity and better time management’ and that ‘[a]ccordingly, there may be a need for such techniques in a device or network.’” Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 133) (alternations in original). Mr. Schmandt supports Petitioner’s arguments by opining that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] looking to obtain additional information regarding where and when to perform tasks to improve management of tasks (as discussed in Dunton) would be motivated to look to references like Barchi that teach methods to obtain additional contact information using techniques like the reverse phone number lookup or use of other databases.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 135. Thus, we agree with Petitioner and find that Dunton provides a rationale for looking to the other cited references to provide techniques to improve task management. As such, we find Petitioner’s rationale for the combination to be persuasive and well supported.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,594,854 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,594,854 - Box, Inc. And Dropbox, Inc. v. Topia Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00430 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither asserted obviousness combination showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing the claims’ unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and the associated evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner believes that we presently need not construe any claim language expressly. Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not argue that we need to construe any claim language expressly. See generally Prelim. Resp; Prelim. Sur-Reply. Further, we do not see the need to expressly construe any claim language. See 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.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner contends: “[T]he claims’ earliest effective filing date is November 10, 2008. A POSA would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in computer science (or similar degree), and two years of work experience developing software, including at least some experience with storage, synchronization, and human-computer interaction technologies. (Balakrishnan, ¶¶15-21.)” Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp; Prelim. Sur-Reply. We find Petitioner’s position consistent with the ’622 patent and the asserted prior art, and supported by Dr. Balakrishnan’s testimony (Ex. 1028 ¶¶15–21). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not find Petitioner’s “natural harmony” rationale sufficient reasoning to establish why a person of skill in the art would have modified Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm in view of Shappell’s and Rao’s teachings to meet the claims. Shappell and Rao teach that metadata is sent first and content or raw data is sent second. They do not teach assigning priorities to the files and their associated metadata and then comparing the priorities to determine which is greater. Petitioner contends that because the metadata is known to usually contain less data than a file and the updated version is newer, Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm would have been reconfigured to assign greater priority to the metadata and lower priority to the files. Pet. 27–28. Petitioner asserts that Sigurdsson motivates the modification because of the “natural harmony” of Sigurdsson’s algorithm to prioritizing metadata. Id. at 25–26. The Petition does not explain why (beyond hindsight) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Sigurdsson to assign and compare priorities by reconfiguring Sigurdsson’s priority algorithm when it would have been simpler always to send the metadata first and content second, as taught in Shappell and Rao. The additional arguments for combining the references presented by Petitioner (Pet. 28–32) do not overcome the failure of the references to disclose this feature of the claims.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,003,622
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.