• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01345 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–20 were shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum; claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum with Shakkarwar.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or explaining its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 1 For example, setting the level of skill to exactly two years of experience would not serve to automatically disqualify an expert having ten years. Kyocera Senco Ind’l Tools v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (requiring that “a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art” and stating that “it would be improper to require an expert witness to possess ordinary skill in the art and nothing more”). In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’588 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The description of “mapping” in the ’588 patent makes clear to us that it is an association of an input value from a set of input values to a corresponding output value from a set of output values. Id. at 2:44–46 (describing “the mapping table that associates non-core domain operating frequencies and corresponding interconnect operating frequencies”) (emphases added). The “association” described here in the ’588 patent is not merely describing the fact that both exist, but that knowing the value of the first causes you to know the value of the second. This is also how it is described in the claims, wherein the “mapping” is “of selectable frequencies of the graphics processing circuitry to selectable frequencies of the interconnect.” Id. at 8:63–65 (emphasis added). Or more generally, the claim recites a mapping of a frequency to a frequency. In sum, although we agree with the parties that “mapping” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification, we note that the parties appear to dispute whether the prior art teaches the claimed “mapping” based on differing understandings of the plain and ordinary meaning. Based on our analysis above, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing the ’588 patent would understand that the “mapping” limitation requires (1) frequencies mapped to frequencies and (2) that a mapping is an association of one value to a corresponding value such that knowing the graphics frequency means that you know the corresponding interconnect frequency. Further, given that the corresponding frequencies are “selectable,” we understand that to mean that there is a set of possible frequencies that are defined from which to select. Ex. 2001, 21:19–22:2. With this understanding, we can turn to the dispute over whether the prior art teaches the limitations set forth in claims 5 and 12, as no other terms require construction at this time. Realtime, 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 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenMixed

    “that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Shakkarwar teaches the claimed mapping limitation, for the following reasons. The lookup table in Shakkarwar has a list of clock speeds (frequencies) for specific devices. Ex. 1006, 7:7–10. These clock speeds represent the bandwidth needs of each individual device. Id. at 7:10–13. By looking up the bandwidth needs of each individual device in use, the system can determine the total bandwidth need. Id. at 7:5–17. For example, if one device requires 20 Megabits of data and the second device requires 10 Megabits of data, then the data rate (bandwidth) required will be 30 Megabits of data. Id. at 7:13–17. If the required bandwidth is different from the current bandwidth, then the current bandwidth must be modified. Id. at 7:18–26. Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,705,588 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,705,588
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01335 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 13 are unpatentable over Conroy and Finkelstein or Conroy; claims 14–18 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or justifying its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’833 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Pet. 10. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “independent” of claim 1. PO Resp. 12–18. For context, claim 1 requires first and second domains, wherein “each of the first and second domains [] operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” Patent Owner provides its analysis and concludes that claim 1 requires that the voltage and frequency of the first and second domains to be “controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14, 15. We disagree with Patent Owner’s conclusion. In particular, we note that Patent Owner is attempting to add a “control” limitation to the claim. The claim does not require independent control of the first and second domains, it requires them “to operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” That is, by the plain language of the claims, what is independent is the voltage and frequency of the first domain compared to the voltage and frequency of the second domain. Patent Owner identifies many passages in the ’833 patent specification allegedly supporting its position, but we do not find any of these passages persuades us to agree with Patent Owner’s position. See PO Resp. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:13–17, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38– 46, 10:4–8). These passages mostly state that the domains are independent, which we understand to mean “separate” in this context. Ex. 1001, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38–46, 10:4–8; accord PO Resp. 14 (summarizing these citations and concluding that “the term ‘independent’ is used in its ordinary sense to mean ‘separate.’”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 33 (same). One passage is similar to the claim language, and recites that a core can be “of an independent power domain and can be configured to operate at an independent voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. We see nothing in these passages that would require independent control as opposed to “operate at an independent voltage and frequency” as claimed. Instead, in the one passage that is similar to the claim language, it is clear that what is “independent” is the “voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. Patent Owner then cites to another batch of passages from the ’833 patent and concludes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ’833 patent is describing a situation in which voltages and/or frequencies of the different domains are controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 1:63–66, 2:22–25, 2:32–36, 5:9–12, 5:21, 5:27–44, 7:20–24, 8:38–42, Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 ¶ 33). Most of these passages describe the domains being allocated portions of a power budget. See Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 2:22–25, 5:28–40, 7:20–24, 8:38–42. One passage is similar to the prior batch of citations, stating that the domains themselves are independent. Id. at 1:63–66. Other passages describe a power control unit doing the allocation, and refers to this as “control.” Id. at 2:32–36, 5:27–26, 5:21, 5:40–44. Last cited by Patent Owner is Figure 1, which has a box labeled “Control First and Second Domains Frequency and Voltage.” Id., Fig. 1 (item 130). Reviewing the cited passages and the figure, we find that the power control unit allocates or controls power. However, the claim is not directed to the power control unit and it does not use the word “control.” The claim requires the first and second domains to have independent voltages and frequencies, and we fail to see any support in the specification to add an additional requirement for independent control of the first and second domains. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “claim 13, it is the domain that is allocated the power budget (as opposed to the domain’s individual cores). See Ex. 1001, 12:57–59 (“allocate a variable power budget between the . . . domains”), 1:56–66 (explaining domains— “the term ‘domain’ is used to mean a collection of hardware and/or logic that operates at the same voltage and frequency point”). We agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Nussbaum is concerned with the power settings of each individual core, GPU, or other computational unit. Ex. 2003 ¶ 63. Even if, in one passage, Nussbaum talks about power reallocation in “computational units, such as the CPU or [GPU],” in context it is clear that the allocations remain on the individual, e.g., core, level. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 19– 20, 21 (Table 1), 23 (Table 2), 24. First, in the sentence just cited, Nussbaum disparages treating units homogenously, i.e., adjusting them in groups or domains (as required by claim 13). Id. ¶ 19. Then, Nussbaum praises distributing power “among the active cores or other computational units,” i.e., on an individual or core level. Id. In this phrase, Nussbaum is not using “computational units” as a word meaning “CPU,” because Nussbaum already directly references the “cores” in the phrase. Id. Nussbaum later discusses figuring out how each core reacts to power changes, in order to determine which cores can better exploit additional power. Id. ¶¶ 25–28. For these reasons, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Nussbaum does not disclose allocating power to a plurality of cores as a single domain (Ex. 2002 ¶ 63), which is consistent with the above-noted disclosures of Nussbaum.” slip op. at 15

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

    “not address these passages of the Petition. See generally PO Resp. 57–59, Sur-reply 17–18. Instead, Patent Owner challenges a separate, general rationale that Petitioner made at the beginning of its ground. See Pet. 69. Rationales that are broad and general may be persuasive. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]ationale[s] [are] not inherently suspect merely because [they’re] generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal. Quite the opposite.”). We need not evaluate Petitioner’s general rationale here, however, because we find Petitioner’s unrebutted, specific rationale arguments about providing a user interface to edit or revise the power sharing values to be persuasive. See Pet. 77–78 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1029 ¶ 236). In particular, we agree with Petitioner that providing a user interface to allow a user to edit the power tables, as taught in Finkelstein, would have been a routine and obvious modification to Conroy. As Petitioner’s expert points out, even beyond the teachings of Finkelstein, it was known in the art to allow users control over power allocation. Ex. 1029 ¶ 236 (citing Ex. 1026, 11:13–27 (describing a “user preferences database” containing “parameters and procedures for how to apportion power among various devices”); Ex. 1028 ¶ 17 (“The [power allocation] preference might be determined . . . based on a selection by a user of the system (e.g., via a graphical interface).”)). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination is an example of using a known feature to provide a known benefit. The known feature is a user interface, and the known benefit is allowing the user to indicate their preferences through the interface. See Ex. 1029 ¶ 236; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”). Based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reason with rational underpinnings for combining the user level control interface of Finkelstein with the power management system of Conroy.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,775,833 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,775,833
• Apple, Inc. v. Koss CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00381 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 14–18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 19 and 20 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not teach the claimed digital signal processor.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience in wireless communications across short distance or local area networks. Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther

    “recitation of “passive, wireless rechargeable power source.” Pet. 80–81. We preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction and determined that a “passive” power source 102 “may comprise capacitors passively charged with RF radiation.” Inst. Dec. 34 (citing Pet. 80–81 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:7–9)7). Patent Owner does not dispute our preliminary construction or identify any other claim term for express construction. See generally PO Resp. The papers filed since institution do not raise a dispute regarding “passive, wireless rechargeable power source.” For completeness of the record, we maintain our preliminary construction of “passive, wireless rechargeable power source.” We also determine construction is unnecessary for any other claim term in order to resolve the dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). On all other claim terms we proceeded based on the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 34.” slip op. at 13

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

    “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “We are not persuaded we should discount the Blair Declaration because he is an employee of Patent Owner and thus is the “testimony of an interested Declarant.” See Reply 15. Petitioner further argues that Mr. Blair’s testimony is conclusory and uncorroborated. Id. In support, Petitioner offers testimony from Dr. Cooperstock, although that testimony is also conclusory and does not identify the basis for the testimony. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 29–31). We give neither expert conclusive weight on the design issues presented. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the Rosener, Hankey, and Dyer combination would not stay in the ear of a user. We find a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that Rosener’s disclosure of a canalphone could be implemented in the Rosener-Hankey combination as advanced in the Petition to provide a superior securing mechanism than an earphone configuration, like that disclosed in Hankey.” Reply 18. Patent Owner’s response is based on the Blair Declaration, which we determined above is not conclusive on this point. See Sur-Reply 13–14. We adopt as our findings Petitioner’s argument and evidence summarized above in the Petition and Reply. Pet. 48–49; Reply 11–12. As We find the Rosener, Hankey, and Dyer obviousness claim to be supported by rational underpinnings.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,491,982 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,491,982
• Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp. And CF Crespe LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2019 · IPR2015-00592 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 are unpatentable by collateral estoppel; claims 4, 6–9, and 21 were not shown unpatentable because the combination rationale was insufficient.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “After this proceeding was remanded by the Federal Circuit, we invited the parties to address a proposed procedure that would include additional briefing regarding the impact of the prior holdings that claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 are unpatentable, and the parties filed their respective proposals. Papers 78–80. In its proposal, Petitioner suggested that Patent Owner “has waived the right to address the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9” because “Patent Owner never separately argued for the patentability of these claims.” Paper 79, 1; see MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1378 n.4 (“On remand, the Board may consider whether CRESPE has waived arguments concerning these claims.”). But those claims were not challenged in the earlier proceedings that held claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 unpatentable. Rather, those claims were only challenged in this proceeding with respect to art that was not at issue in the earlier proceedings. In advancing its contention, Petitioner effectively makes the untenable argument that Patent Owner must provide separate reasons for the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9, even when we determine that its own case-in-chief for those claims is insufficient. In addition, Petitioner’s proposal requests briefing on the issues of “whether claims 6, 7 and 20 materially alter the [unpatentability] analysis on which the prior [unpatentability] determinations rested.” Id. We have considered, and deny, that request. The Federal Circuit’s remand order noted that the fact that “MaxLinear was not a party to the other IPRs is . . . irrelevant since Cresta, the predecessor in interest to CRESPE, was party to the original determination.” MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1377. But the Federal Circuit’s order does not state or suggest that the fact that different prior art was considered in the earlier proceedings is similarly irrelevant. Indeed, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he Federal Circuit has not ordered the Board and the parties to start over from scratch, and certainly not with new prior art.” Paper 80, 3; see Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The Board may control its own proceedings, consistent with its governing statutes, regulations, and practice.”). Patent Owner is correct that “[a]llowing new prior art to be considered on remand after the Final Decision on the merits would essentially be starting a new IPR proceeding.” Paper 80, 9. As Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he parties and the Board would have to argue and consider new grounds, new expert testimony would have to be taken and presented, and a new Final Decision would have to be rendered.” Id. The Federal Circuit’s instruction is limited: “We remand this case to the Board so that it may consider the patentability of the surviving disputed dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 21.” MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1378. We have complied with this instruction in two ways: first, by applying the Federal Circuit’s instruction regarding the collateral-estoppel impact on challenged claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20; and, second, by clarifying that Petitioner’s argument regarding the combination of Van De Plassche and Ishikawa compels a conclusion that Petitioner’s showing is insufficient with respect to claims 4, 6–9, and 21, independent of any conclusion previously reached with respect to independent claims 1 and 17. While the Federal Circuit includes language in its remand order that might be construed as suggesting applying different prior art in the latter analysis, 880 F.3d at 1377, the scope of this proceeding is limited by the prior art and the arguments in the Petition here. SAS Institute, 138 S. Ct. at 1356 (“in an inter partes review the petitioner is master of its complaint”); see Paper 80, 8 (Patent Owner addressing potential ambiguity of Federal Circuit’s instruction).” slip op. at 35

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Experience is but one of several factors that may be considered when determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (identifying factors as including the “type of problems encountered in the art,” “prior art solutions to those problems,” “rapidity with which innovations are made,” “sophistication of the technology,” and “educational level of active workers in the field”). “In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate.” Id. Patent Owner’s distinction relates to a portion of one factor (education) in a determination that involves several factors. The significance of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the role it plays in an obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry”). Patent Owner does not explain persuasively how the alleged omission by Petitioner impacts the obviousness analysis. We conclude that Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is consistent with the level of skill generally reflected by the prior art of record, reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Importantly, we find that Patent Owner did not exhaust avenues available to it in attempting to secure answers to its questions from Dr. Hashemi. The line of questioning involving Exhibit 2008 occurred late in the day, “well after the close of business on the east coast,” and an attempt by the parties to telephone the Board during the deposition was unsuccessful. See Opp. 3; Ex. 2006, 154:24–155:4. The parties discussed contacting the Board the following day, and continuing the deposition the day after that, when Petitioner would make Dr. Hashemi available for further cross-examination after receiving guidance from the Board. Ex. 2006, 155:5–157:13. Rather than proceed in this fashion, Patent Owner decided to abandon the line of questioning and passed the witness for redirect: “I think after we talked about it a bit, I think we will withdraw our questions on this document and just move on to redirect.” Id. at 157: 22–25 (emphasis added). Dr. Hashemi could have answered the questions and sought a protective order that would insulate his answers from the public record, providing the Board with the information needed to perform a focused evaluation of the credibility and reliability of specific statements in his testimony. But a significant measure of responsibility for whether Dr. Hashemi’s testimony is tainted with bias lies with Patent Owner for declining to pursue the issue to a point of greater clarification. Indeed, we are limited in how strongly we can fault Petitioner for failing to submit a clarifying declaration from Dr. Hashemi, in light of Patent Owner’s decision to “withdraw” the questions at issue. Because the evidence is insufficiently developed, we are similarly limited in the degree to which we can draw adverse inferences from Dr. Hashemi’s refusal to answer questions, and unable to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Hashemi’s testimony is tainted by an undisclosed bias. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Not reached

    “C. Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 1213–17 as Supplemental Information, which Patent Owner opposes. Papers 83, 86. The Motion asserts that such information is “relevant to the issues in the case, specifically the lack of nexus between any purported secondary consideration, including surprising or unexpected results.” Paper 83, 1. We do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations because we conclude that Petitioner’s case-in-chief is insufficient. Accordingly, we dismiss the Motion as moot.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,075,585 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,075,585
• Stingray Digital Group Inc. v. Music ChoiceSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01191 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Hudson and Dwek; claims 5 and 10–20 were not shown unpatentable because the references do not disclose the genre channel limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’045 patent, at the time of invention, “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or electrical engineering, or equivalent experience and, in addition, two years of experience in distribution of digital audio and video via networks.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 11–17). Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 6. In considering the issues presently before us, we have adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’045 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. CLAIM INTERPRETATION “A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, and absent any special definition, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the Decision on Institution, we instructed the parties to brief the meaning of “a message comprising information indicating that the user desires to view the video identified by the video identifier” as recited in claims 1 and 6; and “in response to receiving the message” as recited in claims 1 and 6. Dec. 24. The parties agreed upon the express meaning of both phrases, PO Resp. 6–7; Reply 2, which we adopt for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. We discern no need to interpret any other phrase expressly for the purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Comput. Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Moreover, a reference “must [be] considered for all it taught, disclosures that diverged and taught away from the invention at hand as well as disclosures that pointed towards and taught the invention at hand.” Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 296 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). 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, 567 F.3d at 1327 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201). But even if a reference is not found to teach away, its statements regarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine that reference with another reference. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1051 n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (noting that, even if a reference “does not teach away, its statements regarding users preferring other forms of switches are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the slider toggle in” that reference with the invention of a second reference). Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Against this background, we determine that Hudson does not teach away from incorporating the ability to customize playlists as described by Dwek. Hudson never expressly mentions permitting a user to customize its storyboards much less disparages doing so. Dr. Shamos testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Hudson’s advantages of providing links to ancillary content along with primary content would be further enhanced if users also had Dwek’s ability to customize the primary content they were viewing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–46. Dr. Russ’s conclusions otherwise fail to consider each of Hudson and Dwek as a whole, but instead focus narrowly upon specific implementations of delivering media in each reference. Ex. 2109 ¶¶ 49–52. When Hudson and Dwek are considered as a whole, the similarities in their goals suggests their combination. For example, Hudson, by incorporating Headings by reference,3 recognizes that its system is compatible with streaming a wide variety of content including “movies, music videos, educational content, television shows, games, live events, and advertising.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. Similarly, Dwek recognizes that its system may deliver more than music; it may also “deliver video or other streaming multimedia content.” Ex. 1006, 4:10:12. Patent Owner argues that because Dwek describes joining a customized, shared channel “in progress,” Dwek’s system only broadcasts streams in a manner akin to live radio. PO Resp. 17. However, Dwek also contemplates starting playback of its user-defined shared channels at the beginning of the user-defined playlist. Id. at 11:27– 33. Based on our review of Hudson and Dwek, we determine that they both describe systems in which users have some degree of control over what content they consume and when they consume it. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 37–40, Figure 4; Ex. 1006, 1:31–50. We also determine that both systems are designed to facilitate commerce related to the content. Ex. 1004 ¶ 41, 44; Ex. 1006, 3:28–57. Based upon our consideration of Hudson and Dwek as a a whole, we credit the testimony of Dr. Shamos over that of Dr. Russ and conclude that Hudson does not teach away from permitting a user to slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “storyboards much less disparages doing so. Dr. Shamos testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Hudson’s advantages of providing links to ancillary content along with primary content would be further enhanced if users also had Dwek’s ability to customize the primary content they were viewing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–46. Dr. Russ’s conclusions otherwise fail to consider each of Hudson and Dwek as a whole, but instead focus narrowly upon specific implementations of delivering media in each reference. Ex. 2109 ¶¶ 49–52. When Hudson and Dwek are considered as a whole, the similarities in their goals suggests their combination. For example, Hudson, by incorporating Headings by reference,3 recognizes that its system is compatible with streaming a wide variety of content including “movies, music videos, educational content, television shows, games, live events, and advertising.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. Similarly, Dwek recognizes that its system may deliver more than music; it may also “deliver video or other streaming multimedia content.” Ex. 1006, 4:10:12. Patent Owner argues that because Dwek describes joining a customized, shared channel “in progress,” Dwek’s system only broadcasts streams in a manner akin to live radio. PO Resp. 17. However, Dwek also contemplates starting playback of its user-defined shared channels at the beginning of the user-defined playlist. Id. at 11:27– 33. Based on our review of Hudson and Dwek, we determine that they both describe systems in which users have some degree of control over what content they consume and when they consume it. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 37–40, Figure 4; Ex. 1006, 1:31–50. We also determine that both systems are designed to facilitate commerce related to the content. Ex. 1004 ¶ 41, 44; Ex. 1006, 3:28–57. Based upon our consideration of Hudson and Dwek as a a whole, we credit the testimony of Dr. Shamos over that of Dr. Russ and conclude that Hudson does not teach away from permitting a user to 3 Ex. 1004 ¶ 27. customize its content storyboards in a manner akin to Dwek’s customization of musical playlists.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,351,045 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,351,045
• Stingray Digital Group Inc. v. Music ChoiceSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00888 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable as obvious over Mackintosh and Hallier; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable as anticipated by Hudson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Here, the step of “creating a playlist” that includes an asset “corresponding to the selected video” logically requires completing the step of “receiving . . . information indicating that a user desires to view a selected video.” The “selected video” that must be included in the playlist created in step 8b is not determined until after step 8a is completed. Therefore, step 8a must be completed before step 8b is started.” slip op. at 10

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

    “For the reasons expressed in Part II.A above, we conclude that claim 8 requires the first two steps of the claimed method to be performed in the order recited, which means that users select at least one video to view before playlists are created containing the selected video. Under such an interpretation, Petitioner argues that Hudson describes the required order because Hudson expressly states that the steps illustrated in its Figures 3 and 4 may be performed in any order. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 35 (for Figure 3), ¶ 40 (for Figure 4)). However, Hudson’s indications that steps can be performed in any order apply only to each of Figures 3 and 4 individually, and not to the combination of the two figures collectively. In connection with its description of Figure 3, Hudson states “the aforementioned steps need not be performed in a particular order” followed by examples that apply only to steps mentioned in Figure 3. Ex. 1005 ¶ 35. Similarly, while describing Figure 4, Hudson states “the aforementioned steps need not occur in a particular order, or include all steps” followed by examples that apply only to steps mentioned in Figure 4. Ex. 1005 ¶ 40. Hudson never indicates that steps illustrated in Figure 4 may occur before steps illustrated in Figure 3. In Figure 3, Hudson illustrates how its system creates interactive video content, which necessarily must be completed before the steps for delivering interactive video content in Figure 4 are possible. For all these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish that Hudson performs the first two steps of claim 8 in the order recited as required. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that Hudson anticipates claim 8.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner acknowledges that Mackintosh recognizes that server 214 may be overloaded by simultaneous requests for URLs from many user terminals. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:29–36). Petitioner also acknowledges that Mackintosh proposes solutions to reduce the load on server 214 imposed by user terminals requesting URLs that link to supplemental content. Id. at 13–14. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Russ, concedes that Petitioner’s proposed modification of Mackintosh would reduce the load on server 214. Ex. 1009, 68:23–69:3. Accordingly, the evidence establishes that Petitioner’s proposed modification of Mackintosh would address the problem of overloading server 214.” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “For all these reasons, we ascribe little weight to Dr. Russ’s testimony on this point. Instead, we credit Dr. Shamos’s testimony explaining why a person skilled in the art would find Dr. Russ’s hypothetical dual-mute button solution was “not an ‘attractive’ solution for users, content providers, or advertisers.” Ex. 1010 ¶25. In particular, because the “user would be left with the undesirable choice of muting portions of a broadcast track . . . or muting the audio of the supplemental material — meaning the user will miss some portion of content that he or she is interested in, which is both undesirable and ill-conceived.” Id. Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s position on this point to be persuasive.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,320,025 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,320,025
• Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. / Old Republic Insurance Company et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01992 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–24, and 34–48 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 3 and 13 were not shown unpatentable, and claims 25–33 and 49 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “On February 8, 2017, Patent Owner informed the Board that it had “disclaimed claims 25–33 and 49” of the ’002 patent, thereby “rendering the institution of claims 25–33 and 49 in the subject inter partes review proceeding moot.” Paper 18, 1; Ex. 2005 (disclaimer of claims 25–33 and 49 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “2. Analysis To anticipate a claim a “prior art reference must disclose each and every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An inherent disclosure may be found when an asserted prior art reference “necessarily” includes the unstated limitation. Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has identified where each limitation of independent claim 1 is disclosed in Huang. Claims 11, 34, and 40 contain limitations similar to claim 1, Petitioner provides detailed arguments as to where each limitation of these claims is disclosed in Huang, and Patent Owner does not present any arguments for these claims separate from those 7 At oral argument, Patent Owner asserted that we should not consider Petitioner’s argument that the icons of Huang contain URL information because this argument was presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Tr. 32:19–35:5. Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude this evidence, however, or request a sur-reply to address any allegedly new issues raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Id. at 34:18–23. Nor is it evident why Petitioner’s arguments are not appropriate rebuttal arguments addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “pointer.” Accordingly, we decline to exclude Petitioner’s URL arguments and evidence.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “be used in conjunction with the mobile interface agent, including “a computer, cable set top box, cellular phone, or other device.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–45. Patent Owner does not explain why the description of a “pointer” in one “context,” i.e., on a computer or PDA, represents a clear and deliberate attempt to define the term in all contexts, such that all pointers must be a “reference” to “a type of menu item” and be “accessible on a computer, PDA, or server.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (noting that an inventor is “free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,” but “this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”). The broadest definition of the term “pointer” in the ’002 patent is “a link/shortcut to an item.” Ex. 1001, 10:8–10 (“As discussed above, a pointer is a link/shortcut to an item such as . . . .”); Dec. on Inst. 10. This definition is consistent with the description of “pointers” in the ’002 patent written description and claims. Ex. 1001, 20:4–6 (“wherein the pointers provide links to access the corresponding user specific resources and information.”). Accordingly, we construe “pointer” to mean “a link or shortcut to an item.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,546,002 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,546,002
• Apple Inc. / ZTE Corporation And ZTE (USA) Inc. v. E-Watch, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01366 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–14 are unpatentable as obvious over McNelley and Umezawa; claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because the claimed user interface was not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “3. Claims 1, 6, and 12 With respect to claims 1 and 6, as explained below, Petitioner has not established the unpatentability of either claim by a preponderance of the evidence. With respect to claim 12, notwithstanding the arguments and evidence presented by Patent Owner, which are discussed below, we are persuaded by the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioners. Claim 12 has been shown as unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Id. at 8–10. Despite the representations made by Patent Owner regarding the exchanges between the Applicant and the Examiner during prosecution, we agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for these terms are excessively narrow under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation. The prosecution history recounted by Patent Owner above indicates that the articulated distinction from the Ida reference centers on Ida’s failure to describe displaying an image selected from within the memory. Whether Ida’s memory stores one image or a plurality of images was not of significance. Under this circumstance, it is not justifiable, under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, to require a selection from among a plurality of images stored in memory. The claims are broad enough to encompass storing just one image in memory and having that image selected for displaying and for transmission. The fact that the Specification of the ’871 patent discloses embodiments in which more than one images is stored in memory does not justify importing limitations from the Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp., 358 F.3d at 875. We find no express definition in the Specification of the ’871 patent or in any of the prosecution history identified by Patent Owner, for the terms at issue here, much less one set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. If a patentee desires to be his or her own lexicographer, the purported definition must be set forth in the specification or prosecution history. CCS Fitness, Inc., 288 F.3d at 1366. Such a definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249; Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Patent Owner also identifies nothing in the Specification or prosecution history of the ’871 patent that constitutes a disclaimer or disavowal with regard to these terms that is sufficiently specific so as to require the storage of more than one image in the memory.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner argues that “alphanumeric” means “consisting of both letters and numbers and often other symbols,” citing a dictionary definition (Ex. 2009). Id. at 26. The Specification of the ’871 patent does not contain any definition for the term “alphanumeric.” Dictionaries are a relevant source of information, but they are not controlling. We also are cognizant that there are numerous dictionaries and their entries for the same term are not necessarily the same. For example, in this instance, Petitioner has submitted two dictionary definitions for “alphanumeric” that are broader than that offered by Patent Owner: (1) “Consisting of letters or digits, or both, and sometimes including control characters, space characters, and other special characters” (Ex. 1015, 3); and (2) “[a]ny letter of the English alphabet, upper or lower case, or any of the decimal digits, 0 to 9” (Ex. 1016, 3). Reply 5. As discussed above, in this proceeding, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation, to construe the meaning of claim terms. We note further that, as pointed out by Petitioner (Reply 5), even the definition offered by Patent Owner indicates that an alphanumeric character is a character in an alphanumeric system. Ex. 2009. That would mean although a character cannot be both a letter and a numeral, it still can be an alphanumeric character. Applying the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with Petitioner that “alphanumeric” is sufficiently broad to encompass each of these three cases: all numerals, all letters, or a combination of numerals and letters. Patent Owner’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive, and rejected.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “does not expressly set forth a definition. Patent Owner asserts: The technical art associated with the ’871 Patent relates to the field of integrating a camera together with a mobile phone to create a device capable of both audio and image communications on cellular networks. A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”) of the ’871 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree and/or relevant professional experience in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to the design of both cellular communications devices and digital imaging products. PO Resp. 3–4. We are not persuaded that one with ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had experience in designing cellular communications devices. Based on the Specification of the ’871 patent, we determine that the invention is not about achieving improvements in cellular communication technology. Rather, it is necessary for one with ordinary skill in the art only to be familiar with what a cellular communication network required as an input source and what the expected format and/or protocol would be for sending and receiving information to and from the cellular network. It is noted that even Patent Owner’s stated definition does not require any actual experience in designing cellular communication devices, but just experience “related to” the design of cellular communication devices. Other than the foregoing, we determine that no express finding is necessary, on this record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,365,871 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,365,871
• Apple Inc. / ZTE Corporation et al. v. E-Watch, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2016 · IPR2015-00412 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–14 are unpatentable as obvious over McNelley and Umezawa; claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because the required user interface was not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The technical art associated with the ’871 Patent relates to the field of integrating a camera together with a mobile phone to create a device capable of both audio and image communications on cellular networks. A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”) of the ’871 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree and/or relevant professional experience in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to the design of both cellular communications devices and digital imaging products. PO Resp. 3–4. We are not persuaded that one with ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had experience in designing cellular communications devices. Based on the Specification of the ’871 patent, we determine that the invention is not about achieving improvements in cellular communication technology. Rather, it is necessary for one with ordinary skill in the art only to be familiar with what a cellular communication network required as an input source and what the expected format and/or protocol would be for sending and receiving information to and from the cellular network. It is noted that even Patent Owner’s stated definition does not require any actual experience in designing cellular communication devices, but just experience “related to” the design of cellular communication devices. Other than the foregoing, we determine that no express finding is necessary, on this record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16

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

    “The prosecution history recounted by Patent Owner above indicates that the articulated distinction from the Ida reference centers on Ida’s failure to describe displaying an image selected from within the memory. Whether Ida’s memory stores one image or a plurality of images was not of significance. Under this circumstance, it is not justifiable, under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, to require a selection from among a plurality of images stored in memory. The claims are broad enough to encompass storing just one image in memory and having that image selected for displaying and for transmission. The fact that the Specification of the ’871 patent discloses embodiments in which more than one images is stored in memory does not justify importing limitations from the Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp., 358 F.3d at 875. We find no express definition in the Specification of the ’871 patent or in any of the prosecution history identified by Patent Owner, for the terms at issue here, much less one set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. If a patentee desires to be his or her own lexicographer, the purported definition must be set forth in the specification or prosecution history. CCS Fitness, Inc., 288 F.3d at 1366. Such a definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249; Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Patent Owner also identifies nothing in the Specification or prosecution history of the ’871 patent that constitutes a disclaimer or disavowal with regard to these terms that is sufficiently specific so as to require the storage of more than one image in the memory.” slip op. at 14

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

    “PO Resp. 34 (emphasis added). We see no reason to disparage the above-referenced reasoning of Petitioners as “boilerplate language” that “does little” to clarify why prior art teachings may be combined. To the contrary, the language conveys substantial meaning. The fact that Petitioners use the same reasoning multiple times does not, somehow, diminish its significance.” slip op. at 51

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “purported reasoning, i.e., that a user creating a video message recording for McNelley’s device used as an answering machine obviously would have selected the recorded video greeting for viewing to check if it is satisfactory for actual use, and thus any transmission of the recorded message upon actual use would have been a “subsequent” transmission as is required by claim 6. Tr. 73–75. The argument is inappropriate because it is a new argument raised for the first time at oral argument.4 It would be unjust to Patent Owner to consider it at this late stage, without Patent Owner having had a fair opportunity to respond. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, Nos. 2015-1513, -1514, 2016 WL 1019075, at *6–7 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2016); CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2013- 00033, slip op. at 2–3 (PTAB October 23, 2013) (Paper 118) (discussing new argument and demonstrative exhibits at oral hearing). Thus, the argument is not considered. Moreover, the argument does not cure the deficiency that in the answering machine mode, neither dialing controls 186 nor telecamcorder controls 188 is used to cause transmission of the recorded message. During oral argument, counsel for Petitioners presents still another new reasoning, i.e., that if the answering machine answers two calls, then the second transmission would be subsequent to a first display. Tr. 75:16–23. The argument also is belatedly presented, for the first time at oral argument, and thus it is not considered. In any event, like the first new argument mentioned above, this new argument also does not cure the deficiency that in the answering machine mode, neither dialing controls 186 nor telecamcorder controls 188 is used to cause transmission of the recorded message.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,365,871 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,365,871
• Epicor Software Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2016 · CBM2015-00002 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 27–31 were not shown unpatentable under that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “e. Broadest Reasonable Construction of “Database” We determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’201 Patent, and the proffered evidence, of “database” is “an organized collection of structured data.” As discussed above, this construction is consistent with the words of the claims, the disclosure of the ’201 Patent, the testimony of Mr. Schneier and Dr. Shamos and the position taken by Patent Owner in the related district court proceeding. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, Patent Owner’s declarants’ testimony, database manual, or technical encyclopedia that this construction is unreasonably broad.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Mattsson’s and Dr. Direen’s testimony is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with the ’201 Patent. As discussed above, the ’201 Patent describes the O-DB as one database in a larger database management system. Ex. 1001, 5:49–6:12. The ’201 Patent describes the O-DB database as containing data and describes the modules of the larger database management system as performing data processing. Id. at 5:53–58, 6:13–45. The ’201 Patent does not describe the O-DB database as producing the compelling calling. See Ex. 1001, 10:44–58 (“is first collected by the system”); see id. at Abstract, 2:54–61, 3:51–65, 4:16–22, 7:57–61 (disclosing a compelling calling to a data protection catalogue, but failing to describe the compelling calling being produced by the O-DB database). The assertion that the compelling calling is produced by the O-DB database is only found in Patent Owner’s arguments, Mr. Mattsson’s testimony, and Dr. Direen’s testimony, and not the ’201 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 12– 16, 22, 29; Ex. 2046 ¶ 57. Extraneous features should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that regard, “extrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.” Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 (“expert testimony, which was inconsistent with the specification and file history, should have been accorded no weight”). Further, we give little weight to Mr. Mattsson’s testimony because Mr. Mattsson is not a disinterested witness. Mr. Mattsson is Patent Owner’s Chief Technology Officer (Ex. 2045 ¶ 1) and has an interest in the outcome of this proceeding.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Schneier’s declaration should be excluded under FRE Rule 702 or 403. Patent Owner’s arguments attack the sufficiency and credibility of Mr. Schneier’s testimony. As the Board has noted in numerous cases, “the Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to the evidence presented in this trial, without resorting to formal exclusion that might later be held reversible error.” See, e.g., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 at 70 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2014); Gnosis S.P.A., et al. v. S. Alabama Medical Science Foundation, IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014); S.E.C. v. Guenthner, 395 F. Supp. 2d 835, 842 n.3 (D. Neb. 2005); Opp. to Mot. Exclude 4. We, thus, are not persuaded by Patent Owner to exclude Exhibit 1002 and Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 35

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “The scheduling order authorizes the filing of such a motion for observations regarding cross-examination of a reply witness by Due Date 4. Mr. Schneier cross-examination testimony was given on June 12, 2015, prior to Patent Owner filing its Patent Owner’s Response, on June 24, 2105. The cross-examination did not occur after Patent Owner filed its last substantive paper. Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation, thus, is improper. The Scheduling Order did not authorize Patent Owner to file a Motion for Observation of cross-examination that occurred prior to Patent Owner filing its last substantive paper on an issue, the Patent Owner’s Response and Patent Owner did not seek other authorization for such. The improper observations are akin to an unauthorized sur-reply to argument made in Petitioner’s Reply. We, thus, expunge Patent Owner’s unauthorized observations from the record. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.7(a). Additionally, we expunge Petitioner’s Opposition to that Observation (Paper 40) as being unnecessary.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,321,201 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 6,321,201

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.