- BMW Of North America, LLC v. Foras Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach switching the boot-processor role to a spare processor.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “This reference point prevents . . . factfinders from using their own insight or, worse yet, hindsight, to gauge obviousness.” Id.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“processor” to the spare processor, we determine that the claim is describing this transfer of identification of “boot processor,” which is required when transferring a boot processor’s functions to a spare because of the “problems [that] arise in attempting to idle (or eject) the boot processor.” Id. at 6:25– 27. This is confirmed by the language of limitation [1d], stating that the switching of the role of boot processor involves “changing a system identifier of the spare processor to that of the boot processor.” Thus, the firmware and operating system exchange this information identifying the boot processor, which is described in the specification as a device tree. See, e.g., id. at 13:21–35. The ’302 patent makes clear that accurate identification of which processor is the boot processor remains critical during runtime. See, e.g., id. at 6:25–27. Thus, Patent Owner is correct in requiring the system to have a way to identify the boot processor and to transfer this identification during runtime. However, as made clear in the embodiments described in the ’302 patent discussed above, this identification is for runtime purposes to accommodate runtime problems, not for booting purposes. Although Patent Owner may be correct that a function of the boot processor is to boot the system (PO Sur-reply 5), the problem identified in the ’302 patent is a problem relating to the runtime reassignment of the boot processor identity, to address a runtime need to identify the boot processor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 11:6–9. Accordingly, based on our analysis of the claims and specification, we determine that “switching the role of boot processor to a spare processor without shutting down the system’s operating system” means causing the system to identify the spare processor as the boot processor (e.g., in a device tree), which then causes the spare processor to appear as the boot processor to the system during runtime. Ex. 1001, 6:25–41, 11:4–18 (describing why boot processors are treated differently even after the boot process has completed); compare id. at 9:65–11:3 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a non-boot processor without using a spare), with id. at 11:4–43 (process for recovering from loss of lockstep of a boot processor using a spare because boot processors, during runtime, need special treatment); see also 14:66–15:21 (emphasizing that spares are only needed for recovering boot processors). We construe switching a “role of boot processor” to mean transferring an identification in the system of which processor is the boot processor. This construction comports with the embodiments described in the specification. We do not adopt an additional requirement that this procedure also requires designating which processor will boot the system in the next reboot, which is not disclosed in the specification.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“may swap processors that are failing, and perform the necessary bookkeeping to keep the operating system informed as to how to address the processors available, nothing in the Petition persuasively explains whether this generic processor swapping switches the boot processor role. As we explained in our claim construction section, the term “boot processor” is not merely a label of convenience to describe the processor that happened to have earlier booted the system. The role of boot processor is specifically switched to the spare; it is a piece of information tracked by the system. As we explain below, Petitioner does not adequately address the transfer of this information to make the system aware of which processor has the boot processor role. Petitioner asserts that “the BSP flag” of the IA-32 system is used to “determine whether a processor is the boot processor.” Pet. 17–18. Petitioner here is relying on a register used in IA-32 processors to identify whether or not they are the boot processor. This register is used during booting so that only the boot processor boots the system. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 238–40, 710. This register does not appear to serve any further role, and Petitioner offers no persuasive evidence or argument that the processor register flag is exposed or copied to the operating system or APIC table. Petitioner’s proposed combination does not involve updating this register, nor does Petitioner explain how, even if the register were updated, it would meet the “switching” a “role of boot processor” in limitation [1d].” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeOther
“The USPTO has established Rules for objecting to and challenging evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. This process sets various timeframes and permits briefing and curative actions, all of which are designed to crystallize 5 We follow the parties’ convention of citing to the later-added “Page X of Y” pagination rather than the native pagination. the issues and ensure a full and fair opportunity for the parties to be heard. See id. In this instance, Patent Owner’s evidentiary arguments regarding Exhibits 1008 and 1028 are untimely. Accordingly, we will not exclude Exhibits 1008 or 1028 on the basis of their authenticity, admissibility, or for any reason that should have been raised under the proper procedures. See, e.g., PO Resp. 7–8; PO Sur-reply 7–8; see also Pet. Reply 11 (asserting that “Patent Owner has not filed any objection to or a motion to exclude these references”). We consider Petitioner’s citations to these documents in our prior art analysis below. Notwithstanding, as is clear from our patentability analysis below, Exhibits 1008 and 1028 do not serve to demonstrate the unpatentability of any claim.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,624,302 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,624,302 - PTAB · Dec 8, 2025 · IPR2025-01064 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all four §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Volkswagen would prevail on at least claim 1 over Weese.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A. Legal Standards — Petitioner’s Burden “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the 1 Amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 103 enacted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”) took effect in March 2013. The ’353 patent issued from an application filed in September 2004. See Ex. 1001, code (22). Thus, we apply the pre-AIA version of § 103. grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). B. Legal Standards — Obviousness A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if made available in the record, which has not happened here. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’353 patent “would have possessed at least a four-year degree in physics, biophysics, medical physics, or a related field, and two years of experience in developing and/or applying computed tomography methods,” wherein “[a]dditional education and professional experience are interchangeable.” Pet. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–55. “Patent Owner utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears to be consistent with the ’353 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyOther
“unpatentable as having been obvious over Weese, including supporting testimony from Dr. Peterson. See Pet. 17–22, 26–83; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–149, 159–257. Patent Owner opposes. See Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 6–7. We conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions, as follows.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“(iii) Analysis Based on the present record, we determine Petitioner’s contentions regarding the third step of claim 1 are supported sufficiently by the cited disclosures in Weese and Dr. Peterson’s testimony to justify institution of review. In particular, Weese describes obtaining a plurality of second images of the patient’s internal organs (i.e., PET image I0 in Fig. 1, and PET image I10 in Fig. 3) using a second imaging technique (i.e., PET). See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1, 3, and 6, ¶¶ 47–49, 58–59, 72. In particular, PET image I0 in Figure 1 may be a reconstructed “volume image[]” composed of a plurality of “quasi two-dimensional” “slice images” that, when combined, represent a three-dimensional region inside the patient. Id. ¶¶ 48, 58, 61; see also Pet. 56–57. PET image I10 in Figure 3 may be a similarly reconstructed volume image composed of a plurality of slice images.4 See 4 We do not rely here on Petitioner’s alternative theory that Weese discloses a “plurality” of second images because PET images I0 and I10 are “superposed” images encompassing “several states of motion.” Pet. 58. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 61, 83–84. Patent Owner’s sole opposition to Petitioner’s assertions in this regard are limited to whether Weese “obtain[s]” PET images I0 and I10 as recited in claim 1, which we address below. Also, it appears that PET images I0 and I10 are obtained while also obtaining second movement measurements of the patient’s internal organs using a second sensor system (i.e., motion acquisition unit 12 and motion sensor 15 / S1) which is independent from the PET imaging technique. See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1 and 6, ¶ 65 (“[T]he respiratory motion is determined during the acquisition of the PET projections P1 by means of a respiratory motion sensor provided on the patient and therefrom the frequency function f(r) or, more generally, a state of motion function F1 is derived for the construction of the motion model M2.”). Furthermore, Weese describes how frequency function f(r) is utilized to facilitate image comparison between CT and PET images at common motion states. See id. ¶¶ 31, 49–51, 70–71, 75–77, 79–80, 83; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–216 (Dr. Peterson’s supporting testimony). Patent Owner’s sole opposition to Petitioner’s assertions in this regard are limited to whether Weese “obtain[s]” PET images I0 and I10 as recited in claim 1, which we address below. Patent Owner’s two opposing arguments are unavailing, based on the present preliminary record. First, Petitioner relies on reconstructed PET images I0 and I10 as satisfying the “plurality of second images” recited in claim 1, not PET projections P1 from which PET images I0 and I10 are derived. See, e.g., Pet. 56, 58 (“I0 and I10 disclose and render obvious a ‘plurality of second images’ in two ways” — “I0 and I10 may be ‘volume images’ formed using ‘known’ techniques,” and “I0 and I10 are ‘superposed’ PET images encompassing ‘several states of motion,’ which” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,265,353 - PTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00842 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–10 and 12–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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) (2024). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10 and 12–20 in the ’084 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“The Board’s rules require that a petition provide “a statement of the precise relief requested for each claim challenged,” including “specify[ing] where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The Board’s rules also require that a petition include “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Petition satisfies these rules. See Pet. 1, 20–119. Under the heading “Statement of Precise Relief Requested,” the Petition provides the following table:” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“earliest priority date “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with acoustic technology.” Pet. 5. Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. at 5–6. Dr. Kyriakakis’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–35. For purposes of the Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner relies on the Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 11. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’084 patent as well as the asserted references. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:12–3:62, 36:49–39:8, code (57); infra §§ III.E.1–III.E.2.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“4. DISCUSSION “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term, phrase, or limitation requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,197,084 - PTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00843 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12, 14, and 16–20 on all four grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Li and Liao.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2025). 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.” The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that a “person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the ’582 Patent’s earliest priority date (January 5, 2019), would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with acoustic technology.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. At this stage, Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner relies on the definition proposed by Petitioner because Petitioner has not shown that any challenged claims are unpatentable given this level of skill.” Prelim. Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, because we are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’582 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“proposed combination of Li and Liao is based upon improper hindsight, because Patent Owner does not point to sufficient evidence of record that shows combining the teachings of the cited references in the manner proposed by the Petitioner would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Li teaches away from Petitioner’s proposed modifications to add a plug at each end of connecting component 113. See Prelim. Resp. 39, 41. A “reference does not teach away” if “it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Li expresses a general preference for connecting first housing 111 and second housing 112 to the two ends of first elastic metal wire 1131 in connecting component 113 by injection molding. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 29, 35, dependent claims 2 and 7. For example, Li explains that “[o]ptionally, the first housing 111 and the second housing 112 are fixedly connected to both ends of the first elastic metal wire 1131 by injection molding.” Id. ¶ 29. Li does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” using a plug to connect a housing to connecting component 113. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 29, 35. Instead, Li discloses using plugs to mechanically connect components, i.e., to connect rear hook assembly 12 to “the first housings 111 of the two ear hook assemblies 11.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 58, Figs. 2, 9; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 117, 122. Li similarly discloses using mechanical connectors comprising a clamping portion that engages with a locking portion to connect components, e.g., to “fix the first housing 111 and the third housing 114 together” and “fix the second housing 112 and the fourth housing 115 together.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 44–45. Li identifies these mechanical connectors as alternatives to adhesive bonding and “fasteners such as screws.” Id. ¶ 44; see id. ¶ 59 (identifying plugs as alternatives to “screw fixation”). Hence, we determine Li discloses a variety of ways to connect components in a bone conduction earphone but does not appear to “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” any of those ways. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 29, 35, 44–45, 58–59, Figs. 2, 9; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 117, 121.” slip op. at 45
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,310,582 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00745 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 45–47, 51, 59, 60, 68, and 69 are unpatentable; claims 56 and 57 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 85–88 and 91 are unpatentable; amendment is granted for claims 92 and 93.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. skill reflected in the specification of the ’474 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “no formal constructions are presently necessary,” and that it “maps [the] prior art in this Petition in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement before the district court.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner states that it believes there is no need to construe any terms of the challenged original claims because there is no underlying controversy regarding any claim terms. PO Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Motivation to Combine Buibas and Sinyavskiy Petitioner argues that “it would have been obvious to partition Buibas’[s] spiking networks according to the specific techniques disclosed in Sinyavskiy” for multiple reasons. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–203; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, 191, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). First, Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to parallelize task execution on the robot and improve learning capabilities (e.g., through faster learning, greater computing efficiency, and task-specific learning models) of the Buibas mobile robotic apparatus as described by Sinyavskiy and discussed by Dr. Janet.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Second, Petitioner contends, “partitioning Buibas’[s] robotic brain as suggested by Sinyavskiy would have beneficially expanded the range of tasks that the robot could perform by dedicating partitions to specialized tasks.” Id. at 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–205; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Third, Petitioner argues, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to permit unused partitions or unused resources in the partitions to be reassigned for different tasks,” which would allow for a network processing apparatus that has increased processing capability for the same network capacity while also having a lower cost, size and power consumption. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 190–192, 105, 34, code (57); Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Fourth, Petitioner argues that “Buibas briefly mentions that its spiking neural networks can be partitioned but discloses little detail about the partitioning,” which would invite one of ordinary skill to turn to other references, such as Sinyavskiy, for additional detail on how to implement partitioning. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Fifth, Petitioner asserts, combining Buibas and Sinyavskiy would merely “involve[] the application of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to a known system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain) to yield predictable results (e.g., Buibas’[s] robot using a spiking neural network partitioned as taught in Sinyavskiy),” particularly because “the partitioning of the Buibas neural network is reminiscent of Recurrent Fuzzy Neural Networks (RFNNs) that were already commonplace at the end of the 1990’s.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Finally, Petitioner contends, the proposed combination merely involves “use of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to improve a similar system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 69). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially as Buibas and Sinyavskiy describe highly similar systems involving spiking neural networks used for training/operating robots.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Indeed, Petitioner contends, “Buibas itself confirms that its spiking neural network can be partitioned, while Sinyavskiy provides the details for doing so.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Saber that these “weights” are numerical values associated with connections among neurons, and the “weight vectors” are merely lists of weights. PO Resp. 13–14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–67. When input is provided to the neural network, the network uses the weights of its connections in a feedforward calculation manner to provide an output that can include an instruction for operating a device. Ex. 2001 ¶ 66. We agree with and find credible Dr. Saber’s testimony that Buibas’s merging of weights or weight vectors results in updated network weights, and does not, by itself, disclose the merging of instruction sets for operating a device, or the correlation of the same set of inputs for all or a portion of a circumstance representation with instruction sets for operating two different devices. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65, 67, 69–71.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,663,474 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,663,474 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00702 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 4 was obvious over Nakamura and Benini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An 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) (2023). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’270 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’270 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in 2004 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field, with at least two years of relevant experience working with VR [virtual reality] and AR [augmented reality] systems. Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Pet. 27 (citing Welch Decl. ¶¶ 88–90, 91). Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. 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.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). “[W]hile extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, . . . it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted). We construe expressly only those claim terms that require analysis to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Petitioner contends that “[t]his Petition establishes the prior art meets each of the claim limitation[s] under any reasonable construction,” and, “[t]hus, no express construction is required.” Pet. 27–28. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not contain a separate claim construction section. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“1. Setting an origin location Limitation 4.a.1 recites, “a first manual input for setting a[n] origin location setting for a location reference for gameplay.” Ex. 1001, 24:44–46. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown that this limitation disclosed or rendered obvious by the relied-on references. See Prelim. Resp. 29. Petitioner contends that Nakamura teaches the user’s manual selection of a starting point of a game. Pet. 38–40 (citing, inter alia, Welch Decl. ¶¶ 147–148; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 9, 35–36, Fig. 5); see also id. at 62 (for this Ground 2, referencing the contentions made for Ground 1). Petitioner further contends that “[a] POSITA would have also recognized that the initial position setting provides a location reference for gameplay.” Id. at 63. For this Ground 2, Patent Owner incorporates by reference its arguments regarding Ground 1 based on Cheok, Nakamura, and Foxlin077. See Prelim. Resp. 29. Patent Owner argues that “Nakamura’s position icon 113 [displayed at a virtual location appropriate for the initial position] represents a virtual character’s virtual location in the virtual world, rather than a user’s physical location, and has no relationship to the physical location.” Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 36, 38). According to Patent Owner, “establishing a physical origin location as a location reference is critical to key features of the patented system.” Id. at 25 (citing Section III of the Preliminary Response). Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 4, which recites an input for setting “a[n] origin location,” not “a physical origin location.” In support of its arguments, Patent Owner relies on the Specification, stating, for example, that “[t]he ’270 patent’s system ‘prompt[s] a user to” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,967,270 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00703 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 30, and 102 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Cheok and Foxlin077.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. As an initial matter, the claim does not recite “a bounded physical play space.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in 2004 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of relevant experience working with VR [Virtual Reality] and AR [Augmented Reality] systems. Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Welch ¶95; see also ¶¶94. Pet. 17. Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. 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.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“references’ teachings. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Patent Owner specifically argues that “[t]here is no motivation to modify Cheok’s method for allegedly determining the direction of gameplay to include a prompt requesting a manually provided direction; it already allegedly determines direction by the user’s simple movement, which the user will already do while playing the game, a much more efficient process.” Id. at 36 (citing Pet., 29–36). According to Patent Owner, “[a]dding a prompt requesting manual user input for a direction of gameplay has drawbacks to user experience; it slows down the beginning of gameplay and complicates the overall system, removing the natural feel of playing without having to set up the game, when Cheok already works for its intended purpose.” Id. at 36–37. We do not find these arguments persuasive at this stage. Even if Patent Owner is correct that the proposed combination would be less efficient or slow down the beginning of play, that there may be drawbacks from the proffered combination of teachings does not necessarily show a lack of motivation to combine teachings. Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000). And, even if the proposed combination would not have been the best choice, that does not necessarily mean that it was non-obvious. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Dr. Welch testifies, for example, that “[a] POSITA would have . . . recognized it would be beneficial to improve the Cheok system by implementing a similar inertial sensor initialization/reinitialization process [as in Foxlin077] to address any potential accuracy or user experience issues associated with drift.” Welch Decl. ¶ 156. Dr. Welch also testifies that, “in a virtual environment application like the Cheok system, in which a user must interact with the real environment, a POSITA would have understood that Foxlin077’s manual reinitialization process would be beneficial to address accumulated drift when an automatic drift compensator component is not sufficiently removing drift.” Id. ¶ 157. At this stage, that testimony is unrebutted with evidence, as opposed to mere attorney argument.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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) (2023). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’821 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’821 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,033,821 - Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00728 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–15, and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6, 9, and 16 are not shown unpatentable because the Midya-based grounds fail on the terminal limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’430 patent and the prior art. In adopting this definition, we note that neither the title nor the “Field of the Invention” portions of the ’430 patent limit the invention to integrated circuits, and Patent Owner does not dispute that claim 1 encompasses inductors that are not provided on an integrated circuit. Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:16–22. Additionally, Dr. Prucnal’s definitions have shifted, and his latest definition purports to be based on Dr. Tentzeris’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill, but changes “experience designing integrated circuits or inductors for semiconductors” to “experience designing integrated circuits and inductors for semiconductors” without sufficient explanation of the reasons for the change. Supp. Prucnal Decl. ¶ 8; Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 56. However, our Decision in this case would not change under Patent Owner’s revised articulation. See Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 57 (stating that his opinion would not change under Patent Owner’s revised definition of the level of ordinary skill).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“After considering the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 is not limiting. First, we determine that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in claim 11 does not provide antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. The body of claim 11 does not refer to “the semiconductor die” or even mention the “semiconductor die” at all, and neither do any of the claims that depend from claim 11. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 provides antecedent basis for the term “the first inductor” in the body of the claim, because the “first inductor” language in the preamble provides antecedent basis for “the first inductor” language in the claim’s body. The “on a semiconductor die” language in the preamble is presented separately and can be easily parsed from the preamble’s language reciting a “first inductor” without impacting the understandability or grammatical completeness of claim 11. Therefore, the “on a semiconductor die” language in claim 11’s preamble is not necessary to provide antecedent basis for the phrase “the first inductor” in the body of claim 11. This use of language in claim 11 is distinguishable from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Deere v. Bush Hog, cited by Patent Owner, where the preamble term “rotary cutter deck” provided antecedent basis for the term “said deck” recited in the claim body, because in Deere, the words “rotary cutter” appeared directly before, directly modified, and were not easily parsed from the term “deck.” See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2012); PO Resp. 7–8.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 11 do not require that the first and second inductor be laterally spaced, but instead merely require that the second inductor be positioned at a “predetermined distance” from the first inductor. Nothing in the claim language restricts this “predetermined distance” from being in the X, Y, or Z direction, or requires that the inductors be laterally spaced in the same plane. Moreover, the fact that the ’430 patent Specification describes embodiments where the inductors are laterally spaced in the same plane does not limit the claims to those embodiments. As explained previously, our reviewing court “has expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906. “Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Id. We see no such “words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction” here. Accordingly, we give the term “predetermined distance” its ordinary meaning, which includes a distance in any direction. The parties do not dispute that Taniguchi’s inductors are spaced apart with an insulation layer in between. Therefore, under the ordinary meaning of the claim language, Taniguchi’s second inductor is “positioned at a predetermined distance from the first inductor.”” slip op. at 26
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with and adopt the ITC’s construction of “closely spaced,” which is “two terminals in proximity to each other (such that the electromagnetic field at a certain distance from the first inductor (where the second inductor is positioned) is reduced.” Ex. 1020, 12. We find that this construction is supported by the intrinsic record, including the Specification of the ’430 patent, which shows terminals being “closely spaced” compared to the dimensions of the inductor itself, and explains that the purpose of the close spacing is to make the field contributions from the two parts of the inductor identical. See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1–2, 4:28–32. Claims 1 and 11 of the ’430 patent lack specific dimensions for either the inductor or the spacing between the terminals, and indicate that the purpose of the close spacing is to “minimiz[e] magnetic field contributions from the terminals.” Ex. 1001, 10:22–25, 11:7–10. Dr. Prucnal’s ITC declaration, although not intrinsic evidence, further supports our conclusion. Although Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “closely spaced terminals,” it appears to argue that this term must be interpreted based on the dimensions of the semiconductor chip described in the ’430 patent. PO Resp. 43. We do not see any basis in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to impart such a narrow reading to the claim language, particularly because the ’430 patent Specification does not define the “closely spaced terminals” in relation to a semiconductor chip, and claim 1 is not limited to inductors on a semiconductor chip.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 7,151,430 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,151,430 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00332 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has applied Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 13. We apply Petitioner’s undisputed level of skill in the art with the exception of the phrase “at least” which injects potential ambiguity into the level of skill, because Petitioner’s proposed level of skill appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’512 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Upon review of the complete record before us, we determine that it is not necessary for us to expressly construe any claim term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). D. Ground 1: Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–6, 10–16, 20, and 21 over” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“For the following reasons, based on the evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner, we are persuaded that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Kesanupalli and Challener with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–51, 83. First, Patent Owner’s reliance on what Mr. Ramesh Kesanupalli, the individual, allegedly chose not to include in the disclosure of the Kesanupalli patent reference is unavailing. The question of obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art not an actual person who may or may not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ramesh Kesanupalli is one of five named co-inventors on Kesanupalli. Ex. 1006, code (75). 7 Patent Owner’s argument, in essence, is an improper request to limit the Kesanupalli reference to just the explicit problems addressed, solutions proposed, and goals achieved by the Kesanupalli reference. However, “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). We have reviewed all of the cases cited by Patent Owner regarding the determination of obviousness. None of them is at odds with the principle stated in Heck.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Summary of Claim 1 For all the foregoing reasons, Petitioner establishes a by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kesanupalli, Challener, and Cheng.” slip op. at 62
Patent outcomesUS 10,929,512 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,929,512 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00343 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Rădulescu2004 and OCP; the Board did not reach the Weber-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). “[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[This] presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 4:46–50. This passage indicates that the interconnect can be a network on a chip and the network on a chip can include wires and buses. That does not necessarily mean that the interconnect can be just wires or buses; rather, it discloses that the interconnect can include wires and buses. In context, the disclosure regarding wires and buses does not support construing the corresponding structure broadly enough to encompass just wires and buses. The networks that constitute the corresponding structure, however, could include networks with wires and buses. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the corresponding structure for the interconnect means should not include a mere bus, switch, and point-to-point wire and instead find that the corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is a network, which the ’052 patent describes as a multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes. See Ex. 1001, 2:33–37. Because this structure corresponds to the construction of “interconnect means” proposed by Patent Owner and adopted by the district courts in the TI and Qualcomm litigations (see supra Section III.C.3.b), and we do not rely in our analysis below on a recourse to “equivalents thereto” as permitted by § 112 ¶ 6, we note that our ultimate conclusions on the unpatentability of the challenged claims would be the same if § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply. iii. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we construe “interconnect means” to cover the structure described in the Specification corresponding to the specified functions of “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” in the context of claim 6 and “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” and “enabling a connection-based communication having a set of connection properties” in the context of claims 1 and 7—i.e., a “multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes”—and equivalents thereof.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,052 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,052
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.