- Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00634 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 16 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). 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). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s position to be persuasive. Not only are the cover and biosensor module recited separately in the list of components of the device of claim 9, we also agree that the “disposed over” claim language establishes the configuration of two separate components relative to each other. Additionally, the claim language that requires the cover to be “configured to pass optical signals to and from the biosensor module” supports an interpretation where the cover is separate from the biosensor module, otherwise it seemingly would be passing signals to and from itself. The understanding that the cover is separate from the biosensor module in claim 9 is consistent with the Specification’s description of an embodiment that tracks the language of claim 9 and speaks of the two elements as separate, individual components, namely the statement that “[a] biosensor module may be disposed within the opening of the housing” and “[a] rear cover may be disposed over the biosensor module.” Ex. 1001, 2:59–62; see also id. at 2:56 (the same paragraph beginning with “Some embodiments . . .”). Petitioner asserts that its proposed construction is consistent with the claim language, arguing that “the word ‘cover’ naturally suggests that its role is to be ‘disposed over,’” and that “[a] cover can be part of a module just as a clear plastic lid can be both disposed over, and part of, a container, allowing a view of its contents.” Pet. Reply 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s analogy. Although a clear lid may be over a jar, it cannot be said to be “disposed over” the container consisting of both the jar and the lid because it then would be disposed over itself.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination will result in a configuration “that is contrary to Honda’s teachings and its stated goals and purpose of achieving quick and efficient wireless charging.” PO Resp. 30– 31. Patent Owner’s focus on these properties is misplaced. We agree with Petitioner that characteristics such as charging speed and efficiency are not claimed. See Pet. Reply 1 (“[T]he ’783 patent does not disclose, let alone claim, sizing or other details [Patent Owner] Apple asserts are necessary for successful wireless charging.”); id. at 6 (“[C]harging speed [is] not claimed.”). Rather, the claim drafter utilized broad language to encompass a biosensor device having the capability to wireless charge through a cover— both good configurations and those that Patent Owner argues are inferior. And, even if the proposed combination does not yield a commercially viable product, as Patent Owner implies, the broad claim scope would hinder an innovating competitor’s ability to utilize and test that purported less desirable combination on the way to development of a better device. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 31. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 31. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 37–41. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 127 (Dr. Duckworth’s describing a motivating factor in Honda’s explanation “that this [charging] station passes wireless power to the wireless charging receiving coil through a rear cover glass (similar to that of Kotanagi), using the physics of induced currents and magnetic flux.”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 56; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–133 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 10,627,783 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,783 - Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00665 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Institution
Institution denied because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the proposed obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends the following assessment in connection with a person of ordinary skill in the art: The Challenged Claims pertain to a method of recovering geothermal heat. However, “[m]any of the techniques are derived from oil and gas industry.” EX1001 at 4:23-24. Accordingly, here, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a person with a Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, and/or Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering, Petroleum Engineering, Energy Resource Engineering, or the like, or at least five years of experience engineering, drilling, and constructing wells. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also have met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner does not offer its own assessment of a POSITA. For purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesOther
“own for any claim term. Patent Owner does, however, note that “claim element 9c[13] includes the terms ‘means for,’ which are presumed to invoke 13 The referenced “claim element 9c” reads in-part “Means for producing a water density difference and a pressure difference between said first means-plus-function treatment under Section 112.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B Inc., IPR2022-01378, Paper 12 at 11 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2023) (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part))). Patent Owner further submits that “[u]nder Rule 104(b)(3),[14] Petitioner had an obligation to provide a construction of claim element 9c that includes both the claimed function and the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that the term “means for” when appearing in a claim triggers a rebuttable presumption that treatment under § 112 applies. On the record before us, however, Petitioner has not explained why the noted presumption has been rebutted or does not apply, and has not provided a construction of the pertinent “means for” term in the Petition in contradiction to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 104(b)(3).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“While it is certainly the case that “a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art,” see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is incumbent on a petitioner, in advancing a permissible theory of obviousness, to explain why a skilled artisan would recognize to pick and choose certain aspects of a reference and combine them with other aspects of the reference, particularly so where the reference itself does not suggest such combination. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests” ) (citation and inner quotes omitted). Here, Petitioner’s oscillation between different embodiments of Rinaldi in an attempt to reach the requirements of claim 1 is not adequately explained, and more closely resembles impermissible hindsight. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). In sum, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as a part of Petitioner’s proposed Ground 1.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,320,221 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00310 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 4–6 and 8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 4–6 and 8 are obvious over Lee1 and Lee2.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’207 patent. We institute this inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In its Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner generally concurs with [Petitioner’s] description, though would propose that a POSITA only needs two years of experience . . . . [but] does not believe any difference between Patent’s Owner’s view and Petitioners’ view affects the unpatentability analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by expert testimony and is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“When construing claim terms, we first review the language of the claims. TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claim recites four terms: “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0),” “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1),” “powerRampingStep(0),” and “powerRampingStep(1).” Ex. 1001, 36:57–62. These terms represent outputs of, or values dependent on, inputs (0) or (1). Id. at 29:30–53; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 21– 23. Given that claim 4 separately lists initial power values “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0)” and “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1),” we are skeptical of Petitioner’s argument that these two values should be construed to mean a single value (i.e., preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower), because that would render the separate listing superfluous. Moreover, if the two values “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(0)” and “preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower(1)” were construed to mean single value preambleInitialReceivedTargetPower, the additional “(0)” and “(1)” claim language would be superfluous. 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.”); Dig.-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phx., Inc., 672 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting “the importance of construing claim terms in light of the surrounding claim language, such that words in a claim are not rendered superfluous”); Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”); Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (construing claim to avoid rendering the 30 degree claim limitation superfluous); Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo–Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (rejecting the district court’s claim construction because it rendered superfluous the claim requirement for openings adjacent to the end walls).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“The obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Because the prior art need not explicitly disclose or explicitly suggest the proposed modification (here, at least according to Patent Owner, making initial power and power ramping dependent on procedure type), the absence of precise teachings regarding the proposed modification does not undermine the grounds of unpatentability. Lee2 discloses initial power and power ramping functions dependent on input. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 63, 71–74. Specifically, Lee2 discloses using, based on measured signal power (RSRP), event/distance as input for initial power and power ramping. Id. Lee2 does not, nor could it, address using procedure type as input for initial power and power ramping because Lee2 only discloses 1 type of procedure––the conventional 4-step. Ex. 1006, Fig. 3. Per Lee1, reducing from the conventional 4-step to 2-step is a development in the technology to reduce time delay. Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Although not discussed in Lee1, the prosecution history shows that switching from 4-step to 2-step is similarly based on measured RSRP. Prelim. Resp. 39 (discussing prosecution history); Ex. 4039–40. Patent Owner’s declarant also acknowledges that there is a correlation (albeit unreliable) between RSRP and distance. Ex. 2002 ¶ 27 (“RSRP may or may not correspond to distance in the real world due to various wireless artifacts . . . .”). Accordingly, we are preliminarily persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art, facing the needs created by the development of new types of procedures (i.e., the 2-step), and upon recognizing the link between event/distance, procedure type, and measured RSRP, would have, in light of Lee2, seen a benefit and had a reasonable expectation of success in using initial power and power ramping functions dependent on procedure type.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,932,207 - Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00664 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations failed to teach or suggest the claimed selectable widget functionality and lacked a coherent rationale to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] of the ’352 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to human-computer interaction, such as Human Factors, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience working with touchscreen user interfaces. More education could substitute for less work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In our Decision to Institute, we construed “input that is directed to a portion of” a user interface. Paper 8, at 9; see also Pet. 24–25. Because this interpretation is not necessary for our final determination, we do not repeat it here.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3. Petitioner’s reliance of the testimony of Dr. Rosenberg (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 91) is unpersuasive because Dr. Rosenberg merely restates the Petitioner’s assertions without reliance on persuasive evidence of record. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, at 5 (Feb 10, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.) (“[T]he Board was correct in giving little weight to Petitioner’s expert because the expert declaration merely offered conclusory assertions without underlying factual support and repeated, verbatim, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments.”). When addressing Chae’s three graphics in Figure 6(b) during cross-examination, Dr. Rosenberg testifies that “[t]hey’re not a numbered element, so they’re not spoken about specifically those three ones”). Ex. 2005, 56:9–14, 54:21–22 (“Chae doesn’t talk about the weather icon”). Further, the final record does not support Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “part of the well-known functionality of widgets was that selecting a widget would cause ‘display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. None of the references relied upon by Petitioner discloses this alleged “well-known functionality of widgets,” nor does the evidence of record support any industry standard usage of the term widget in the appropriate timeframe. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 46–48. Petitioner has also not persuasively shown that selections of Chae’s SIM card icons result in the display of an application as claimed. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154, Fig. 22; see also Tr. 43:14–17 (“the claimed interface object causes display of the corresponding application, but selection of this paragraph 152, Figure 22 widget causes selection of something different, a sim environment.”). We find Patent Owner’s position more persuasive, when Chae uses the word widget, it is not using that word to refer to something that launches into an application, but instead Chae’s widgets show use-state information related to a SIM environment. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154; Tr. 33:3–12. Specifically, Chae discloses “widgets that show use-state information of the first and second SIMs (SIM1 and SIM2),” and “when a user selects one of [the] widgets,” it “unlocks the SIM corresponding to the dragged widget.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 153, Fig. 3 (unlocking SIM displays home screen customized to unlocked SIM). Chae does not support that these widgets relate to the graphic items in its Figure 6(b), nor does Chae explain how its widgets could be understood as the claimed “user interface objects” of the widget screen user interface. As explained persuasively by Dr. Cockburn, “the only widgets that are described in Chae are widgets relating to the use state of the multiple SIM cards,” and “[t]hese widgets described in Chae do not correspond to applications and thus do not cause display of applications when the widgets are selected.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 152).” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the final record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that the combination of prior art teaches the required widget limitation of “a respective user interface object . . . when selected, causes display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object” as recited in claim 1. Petitioner relies on Chae’s Figure 6(b), which is reproduced below: Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,106,352 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,106,352 - PTAB · Aug 14, 2024 · IPR2024-00510 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2 and 4 were obvious over any of the three asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that the Petition has not met this standard. Therefore, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We adopt Petitioner’s formulation.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The specification of the ’976 patent (“Specification”) does not expressly define the first RNTI phrase, but it provides some support for Patent Owner’s implicit construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:41–46 (“URLLC C-RNTI (i.e., different RNTI from SPS C-RNTI)”). The prosecution history for the ’976 patent does not provide evidence regarding how the first RNTI phrase should be construed. See Ex. 1002. Ordinary usage, however, favors Patent Owner’s implicit construction. For example, the term “object” in the phrase “an object different from a ball” would generally exclude a ball. As an illustration, in ordinary usage, a tennis ball would generally not be considered to be an object different from a ball merely because baseballs also exist. Similarly, a red ball would not be considered to be different from a ball merely because green balls exist. Instead, in ordinary usage, an object different from a ball would be limited to objects that are not balls, such as a tennis racket and a baseball bat. Further, Petitioner has not given us any reason to adopt its proposed implicit construction even though it could have anticipated that its implicit claim construction would be at issue based on Patent Owner’s reasonably expected arguments. Pet. 4–5, 32–37; see also id. at 36 (“If Patent Owner argues that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs, Babaei still satisfies the requirement that the ‘first RNTI’ be ‘different from … a semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTI’ . . .”). After reviewing the record, we construe the first RNTI phrase as requiring that the recited first RNTI is not a semi-persistent scheduling C- RNTI.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner recognized that Patent Owner might argue that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs. Pet. 36 (“If Patent Owner argues that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs”). Petitioner, however, made no attempt to prove and, in fact, does not argue that the SPS RNTIs of Babaei are not semi-persistent scheduling C- RNTIs. Id. Instead, Petitioner relies on its implicit construction for the first RNTI phrase and asserts that, because there are differences between Babaei’s SPS RNTIs, they satisfy the first RNTI phrase (even if both SPS RNTIs are semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTIs). Id. As discussed in Section II.B.1 above, we did not adopt that implicit construction. Instead, we construed the first RNTI phrase to require that the first RNTI is not a semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTI, and Petitioner has not shown that what it maps the recited first RNTI to is not a semi-persistent scheduling C-RNTI. See Section II.B.1 above. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing for the first RNTI recitation. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that claims 2 or 4 would have been obvious over the combination of Babaei and Fwu.” slip op. at 17
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 10,484,976 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable over Banerjee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Immersion argues that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because there is a district court case involving the ’067 patent. Prelim. Resp. 50–56 (discussing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”)). However, the co- 1 Banerjee et al., US 2017/0108930 A1, published Apr. 20, 2017 (Ex. 1011). 2 Meglan et al., US 2012/0045742 A1, published Feb. 23, 2012 (Ex. 1012). 3 Rogers et al., US 2017/0354864 A1, published Dec. 14, 2017 (Ex. 1010). pending district court litigation has been stayed. Ex. 2004, 8. In Valve Corp. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2024-00478, Paper 11 at 9–18 (PTAB July 25, 2024), the Board addressed nearly exactly the same arguments and issues raised by Immersion here. We adopt and incorporate the reasoning in that case as our own. In short, the stay obviates concerns over efficiency and duplicity of efforts raised in Fintiv. See, e.g., Fintiv at 6 (“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.”). Therefore, we do not discretionarily deny the Petition.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that formal education could substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. Pet. 6, Prelim. Resp. 12. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially similar, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appears to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. At this stage, we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other. We adopt Valve’s proposed level of skill for this decision because it is sufficiently persuasive to meet Valve’s “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms explicitly. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:1–4, 5:60–62; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77– 80; Ex. 1006, 4–5); Prelim. Resp. 13. We agree that, for the purpose of institution, we do not need to adopt explicit constructions for any claim terms. To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is disputed, we discuss it below in the context of the prior art. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(g) Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that Valve has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Banerjee discloses all the limitations of claim 1, or at least that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, in view of Banerjee, to combine features, including a sensor, as recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that Valve is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under §§ 102 or 103 based on Banerjee. 3. Other Claims Because Valve has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1 as discussed above, we will institute on all claims and all grounds raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Corrigent CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00447 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish the claimed port assignment and packet labeling under Raz or adequately explain the Raz–Ferguson combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“packet-switched networking, MPLS and LAG.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57–58). Petitioner also states that a lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 57). Patent Owner “uses the same definition.” PO Resp. 4. We apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill, which is undisputed and is consistent with the level reflected by the ’602 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe claims using the principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) and related cases. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). Under that precedent, 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. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Neither party proposes any express claim constructions. Pet. 6–7; see PO Resp. 4. To the extent that the parties dispute the meaning of certain claim terms, we address those issues below, but we determine it is unnecessary to expressly construe any terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner argues, and we agree, that the cited portions of Raz do not disclose a LAG between two switches. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner acknowledges this; as stated in Petitioner’s Reply, “Petitioner has always acknowledged that Raz addresses the use of subports within an LSR, but a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have found it obvious from Raz to use Ethernet physical data ports of a router or switch in an Ethernet LAG to communicate high-speed packet streams in [an] MPLS network.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Pet. 15, 19, 22–25; Ex. 1021 ¶ 13; Ex. 1006, 1:16–19, 2:23– 31, 7:7–29, 11:3–12, 13:16–19, 14:42–44, 15:56–58, 17:7–9). Petitioner argues that LAGs were well known and, “[w]hile PO argues that Raz teaches the use of a single high-speed link to communicate between LSRs, that is merely a design choice.” Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 15–17; PO Resp. 8–9). Further, Petitioner argues “[i]t would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that high-speed packet streams could be communicated between switches or routers through a physical tunnel port of a LAG.” Pet. Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 15–17) (emphasis added). Among other problems, though, those arguments were not in the Petition; the Petition does not describe modifications of Raz’s teachings, much less establish those modifications as a “design choice.” See Pet. 25; see also PO Sur-reply 3. Further, we agree with Patent Owner that Raz is fundamentally different with its teachings of multiplexing the outputs of multiple slow- speed subports/processors into a single stream for transmission across a single high-speed link. PO Resp. 7–9, 12–13, 15–16; PO Sur-reply 4–5. As stated in Raz, “[t]he present invention provides a subport forwarding and provisioning mechanism whereby a plurality of subports comprising slower speed processors are used to perform the packet processing for a higher speed packet stream.” Ex. 1006, 6:24–27. Additionally, where Raz describes communication between two LSRs, Petitioner acknowledges that Raz teaches that its cited second LSR assigns the port on which it will receive a data packet. Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1021 ¶ 20 (“in Raz, the second LSR chooses the subport that will be used to transmit the data packet from the first LSR and receive the data packet at the second LSR”). According to Petitioner, Raz teaches that “a first LSR generates a data packet label in which a port serial number is encoded and sends the label to a preceding LSR. Subsequently, the preceding LSR sends a data packet to the proper subport for processing. The process is then repeated in sending the data packet from the first LSR to a second LSR.” Pet. Reply 4 (citations omitted). “This technique just as easily could have been implemented to identify a single physical tunnel port through which a data packet in a first router or switch would be communicated to a second router or switch via a LAG.” Pet. Reply 4 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1006, 2:23–25, 7:7–16, 7:22–26, 11:3–29, Fig. 5; Ex. 1021 ¶ 18). Again, these arguments were not made in the Petition (see Pet. 22–25), and Petitioner’s assertions that Raz’s teachings “just as easily could have been implemented” in the manner claimed is improper hindsight and inconsistent with the fundamental differences between Raz’s multiplexing within an LSR and the claimed link aggregation and port assignment between MPLS/LAG switches.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“[c]laims 1–13, 15–24 and 26 set forth above in Ground 1.” Pet. 52. Further, Petitioner states that “[f]or independent [c]laims 1, 15, and 26, Ferguson builds on the previous analysis of Raz by disclosing a system for communicating packets between switches and routers in an MPLS network.” Pet. 52; see Pet. 52–55. Critically, though, Petitioner does not specifically explain how the combined teachings of Raz and Ferguson would satisfy individual claim elements. Among other problems with Petitioner’s proposed combination, Petitioner does not adequately explain how or why a person of ordinary skill would have combined the references to include the claimed port assignment and packet labeling for transmission of a packet from a preceding node and then between a first and second MPLS switch. See Pet. 56–59. Instead, Petitioner generally advocates for the combination of Raz and Ferguson, arguing for example that “both Raz and Ferguson are directed to solving the problem of ensuring enough bandwidth is available to communicate high-speed packet streams through an MPLS network.” Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:60–11:12, 14:33–41, 15:47–55, 17:1–9, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007, 1:28–42, 2:54–57, 4:55–60; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 247–249). Further, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill “would have understood from the disclosures in Ferguson that techniques for utilizing an Ethernet physical data port in a LAG to communication data packets between routers or switches in an MPLS network are also applicable to the use of subports transmitting the data packets within the routers or switches, and vice versa.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 250; Ex. 1007, 5:61–6:6); see Pet. 56–59; Pet. Reply 20. But Petitioner does not adequately explain how the proposed combination of Raz and Ferguson would cure the deficiencies addressed above in Petitioner’s analysis of Raz for Ground 1. Among other problems, none of Petitioner’s arguments adequately address port assignment and labeling in the proposed combination, much less adequately explain why the proposed combination would satisfy the challenged claims. See Pet. 55–56. As Petitioner does not adequately explain how the teachings of Raz and Ferguson might be combined to cure the deficiencies addressed above, we additionally determine Petitioner’s arguments and evidence advanced for the combination of Raz and Ferguson do not establish obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence for any of claims 1–26.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 9,118,602 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,118,602 - Next Step Group, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00525 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the challenged design claim unpatentable on any of its ten asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). After considering the Parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the one claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“December 15, 2015”). The date that a product was listed as first available on a website, however, is not sufficient evidence that the content of the listing, including the photographs depicted therein, were published at that time. See Ex parte Basulto, Appeal 2020-00129, 2021 WL 1264902, at *2 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2021) (stating “the date [a] product was listed on Amazon.com is not compelling evidence that the content of [the] listing itself as shown in the document, and the photographs relied on within it were published at that time”). Selling products online is dynamic. Id. Product listings may be updated and photographs of the products may change. Id. While a statement on a commercial website as to when a product was “first available” might constitute evidence as to when the product was first offered for sale, such a statement is not sufficient evidence that the listing itself, or any photograph depicted therein, has not changed over time. See Ex parte Zhang, Appeal 2021-000087, 2021 WL 633718 at *3 (PTAB Feb. 16, 2021) (stating “while the [webpage] date indicates that the product information was last updated on [date], there is no additional evidence to corroborate that the picture was publicly accessible on that date”). We have also reviewed the customer reviews that Petitioner asserts show “the listing were [sic] public, printed publications.” Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1009, 6; Ex. 1015 ¶ 17–18. None of the reviews dated prior to the critical date of November 8, 2019, however, contain any images of the UGG Neumel Boot. See Ex. 1009, 6). Thus, Petitioner does not provide sufficient evidence that any of the images on pages 1–9 of Exhibit 1009 were available on the website prior to the critical date.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Here, the pull-tab does serve a useful purpose as it can be used to pull the footwear onto the foot. Based on the evidence presented, however, we disagree with Petitioner that the pull tab is primarily functional and should be removed entirely from the construction of the claimed design. Petitioner presents a number of arguments to support its position that the pull tab is functional, not ornamental. Petitioner asserts that the pull tab is “obviously not ornamentation but instead is a functional element that is used to pull the footwear on to the foot, an important function and part of the Patent Owner’s marketing message.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 64–67; possible, the type of pull tab shown in the ’161 patent “is the kind that is generally used in shorter shaft, lower ankle height footwear to make it easier to pull up and put the boot on the foot.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1009, the UGG Neumel Boot). Petitioner further asserts that the pull tab is “securely attached for actual use, countering that it is ornamental” and that “[a]ny other pull tab (e.g., not at the top of the footwear as in the UGG Neumel Boot) would not be as efficient and hence not an acceptable alternative.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 64–67; Ex. 1013, 25–27). We are not persuaded by these arguments. The “marketing material” relied on by Petition, as discussed by Mr. Holden, merely states that Ultra Mini Ugg Boots “have a slightly lower ankle to make it easier for you to slip on,” that the UGG boots are “fantastic” for those who “may struggle with pulling on other styles,” and the boots “are fantastic for those who may struggle with pulling on other styles and are looking for more comfort and durability.” See Ex. 1011 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1003). None of the marketing material cited by Petitioner even mentions a pull tab. Nor does the present record support Petitioner’s contentions that,” slip op. at 27
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. First, the images of the Emu Stinger Micro Boot that Petitioner relies upon are from pages 1–6 of Exhibit 1002, which as noted above, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown to constitute a printed publication prior art. Thus, Petitioner’s arguments are based on images in a reference that does not qualify as prior art to the claimed design. The images found on pages 8 and 9 of Exhibit 1002 are not the same images as those relied upon in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1002, 8– 9, with Pet. 35–36. Thus, for at least this reason, Petitioner fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the ’161 patent is anticipated by the Emu Stinger Boot. Second, even if we were to consider any of these images of the Emu Stinger Micro Boot depicted in Exhibit 1002, Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive because the arguments fail to adequately address differences between the claimed design and the prior art as viewed by an ordinary observer. See Door-Master Corp., 256 F.3d at 1313 (stating for anticipation to be found, the claimed design and the prior art design must be substantially the same). For example, the Figures of the ’161 patent depict (1) a stitch pattern design that includes a wavy line on the back heel of the boot (see Figs. 1–3, 5), (2) a pull tab that extends over the top part of the back of the boot and opening for insertion of the foot that appears to constitute more than 50% of the length of the boot (Figs. 2, 3, 6), and (4) a backward sloping top line. Petitioner does not address the differences between (1) the stitch pattern (2) the pull tab, or (3) the size of the opening for the foot at all in its anticipation argument. See Pet. 35–38.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Astala and Shahoian and over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because there is a district court case involving the ’507 patent. Prelim. Resp. 43–49 (discussing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”)). However, the co-pending district court litigation has been stayed. Ex. 2004, 8. In Valve Corp. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2024-00478, Paper 11 at 9–18 (PTAB July 25, 2024), the Board was faced with substantially similar arguments and issues raised by Patent Owner here; we adopt and incorporate the reasoning in that case as our own. In short, the stay obviates concerns over efficiency and duplicity of efforts raised in Fintiv. See, e.g., Fintiv at 6 (“[a] district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts”). Therefore, we do not discretionarily deny the Petition.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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 “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 provided below, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’507 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Both proposed levels of skill appear to be substantially similar and reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’507 patent and asserted prior art. At this time, we would discern no difference in outcome from choosing one over the other. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision because it appears to be a reasonable definition and Petitioner bears only a “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“time interval has elapsed.” Prelim. Resp. 18. We disagree that the claims preclude any particular combination of events, so long as the three conditions are satisfied in the process of determining of a press. The claim does not specify or limit the ways in which the three conditions need to be satisfied to determine a press, and Patent Owner offers no claim construction analysis that would so limit the claims. In sum, we agree with Petitioner at this stage that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already states: that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three claimed conditions. Claim 1 does not set out any further requirements. Thus, we do not see the need to construe the claim beyond its plain language. We do not explicitly construe any terms in this Decision at this time because the issue of whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood can be resolved without explicitly construing the claims. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,507 - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by or obvious over Rosenberg.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner’s analysis persuasively demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success of showing that the subject matter of claim 1 is unpatentable. That Rosenberg varies, or modulates, its haptic effect based on the input signal, and specifically the degree to which the input signal represents a value close to a target value, persuades us on this record that Rosenberg describes the recited “modulating” limitation. On whole, reviewing the Petition and the evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by, or would have been obvious in view of, Rosenberg.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In our view, on this record, the first construction is too narrow. It adds limitations from the specification that are not found in the claims, namely, the term “continuous” or “continuously.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 843–44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A] claim is not limited to the embodiments described in the specification unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim’s scope with words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no requirement that the claims must recite all the features of the specification, and we are not persuaded on this record that the claim requires this absent word. The second potential construction offered by Petitioner states that it “would not require the ‘new input’ mapping to the modulated haptic signal to be received immediately after earlier input that was mapped to a haptic signal.” Pet. 22. Petitioner states that the second construction would cover situations where an input sensor is mapped to a haptic signal but later new inputs are not mapped to a haptic signal, and then even later new sensor input is mapped to a haptic signal. Id. Petitioner does not provide further explanation, and it is not clear to us on this record what the construction would be. Instead, the second potential construction merely seems to be an example of a situation in which Petitioner asserts the claim limitation would be met. In sum, we do not adopt either of Petitioner’s proposed constructions. We do not offer our own construction at this time, however, because we believe that construing the claim limitation is unnecessary for the purpose of institution. Instead, we will focus on the plain language itself, “modulating the haptic signal when new input is received,” when reviewing Petitioner’s prior art grounds. We do not explicitly construe any terms in this Decision at this time” slip op. at 7
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546
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.