• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00954 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 8–19 are unpatentable: claim 3 is anticipated by Yu and obvious over Okashita, Okashita and Yu, and Burgener and Okashita; claims 8–19 are obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “ORDER For the foregoing reasons, ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Amend (Paper 19) is granted, and claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are canceled;” slip op. at 37

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. 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. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,745,886
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01402 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 3 and 8–19 unpatentable: claim 3 was anticipated by Yu and obvious on the stated grounds, and claims 3 and 8–19 were obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,745,886 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’886 patent”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of Dr. Scott E. Thompson, Ph.D., in support of the Petition. Ex. 1002 (“Thompson Dec.”). Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On April 4, 2025, we instituted this inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”). Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (“PO Resp.”) limited to the patentability of the challenged claims. Paper 18. In support of the Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner filed a Declaration of John Berg. Ex. 2006. Patent Owner also filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend, cancelling claims 1, 2, and 4–7. Paper 19 (“Mot.”). We grant the motion. This proceeding is therefore limited to the patentability of claims 3 and 8–19 (“challenged claims”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. 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. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successAnalogous artMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. We also find that Petitioner has shown rational underpinnings for combining Okashita and Yu. Pet. 43–44. That the references have differences is not the test. Rather, the test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine them. We find there is sufficient motivation. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:4–17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 177– 178). 3. Conclusion on Ground 3 Patent Owner does not argue any other reason that Ground 3 has not been sufficiently shown. Based on the full record, we determine that Okashita and Yu teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success. We thus determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 would have been obvious over the combination of Okashita and Yu.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,745,886
• ARM Ltd. / Mediatek Inc. v. Daedalus Prime LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00207 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Director review

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7, 11–14, and 16–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsDirector review decision

  • Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision granting Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denying institution (“Decision,” Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed an authorized response. See Paper 121 (“DR Request”); Paper 13 (“Patent Owner Response”). The Director granted the DR Request and referred the Petition to the Board “to handle the case in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate.” Paper 14 (“Order Granting Director Review”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”) We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’228 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See SAS Inst. Inc. v Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 364–65 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (a)” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “As noted above, Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response and thus does not respond at this time. Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 13

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

    “a “single caching agent,” which is recited in claim 1 here. ’1344 IPR, Paper 31 (“Final Written Decision”), 16–18. We concluded that a “‘single caching agent’ means ‘one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.’” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 14

  Claim constructioncites KSR · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,984,228
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01343 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 13–15, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Bose and White, alone or in the asserted combinations, failed to teach claimed workload comparisons or workload monitoring.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded and find for the reasons given that Petitioner fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that White teaches or suggests “receiving a bus workload for a communication bus and a first processing element workload for a first processing element based on an integrated circuit reaching a limit.” Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[t]he workload is a function of the demands imposed by, e.g., applications running on the system, and may or may not be subject to direct control, whereas the conditions under which that workload is processed are controlled directly.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 66. We agree with Dr. Brogioli and find that White’s frequency and voltage monitoring and adjustments do not result in the power management logic receiving the bus workload as recited in claim element 4[a]. Id. ¶¶ 64–66. We find the testimony of Mr. Wyatt on this issue unconvincing. Wyatt Decl. ¶ 103. In support of his opinion that “monitoring the operating voltages and frequencies of the logic core 120A and common logic bridge 110 is monitoring the workload of those components,” he states: “It was well understood that operating frequency and voltage of a component reflect the activity and use, or workload, of that component.” Id. However, he does not provide any evidentiary support for this statement. We, therefore, give it little weight. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019)5 (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”) (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “response. Paper 9. At the institution stage, therefore, Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 12–13. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “uses this definition” in its analysis. PO Resp. 15 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25). In view of the foregoing, for this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’494 patent and the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Wyatt. See Wyatt Decl. ¶ 21.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term “workload.” PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the ’494 patent, the term ‘workload’ means ‘an amount of activity over a quantum or period of time.’” Id. at 15. Dr. Brogioli’s testimony supports this construction, as does Mr. Wyatt’s. Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 36–38; Wyatt Dep. 34:14–36:9. The ’494 patent also supports this construction. Ex. 1001, 8:20–22, 9:60–63. Petitioner does not dispute this proposed construction in its Reply. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “workload.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “Nowhere does Petitioner or its expert point to an explicit disclosure in Bose of making a comparison of the claimed “bus workload and a bus workload threshold.” Instead, Petitioner relies on its expert’s opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill might have known, without any additional supporting evidence. See, e.g., Pet. 26 (“[A person of ordinary skill] would have understood global PMCU compares a workload threshold as exemplified by the predicted power and performance of each power mode and the monitored workload to select and adjust the power mode of a component” (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 54–55)). This opinion is not supported by the record. The only disclosure of a comparison in Bose that we have been shown is the comparison of PowerTotal to PowerMax in step 303 of Figure 3, which Petitioner does not rely on to meet the “comparison” limitation in the claim. Hearing Tr. 17:16–20. Also without proper support is Petitioner’s assertion that “a [person of ordinary skill] would have understood that in Bose, selecting or adjusting power mode for a component entails comparing a workload threshold, such as predicted power and performance associated with each power mode with real time statistics, such as the monitored workload of a component.” Pet. 26 (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 55–56). We determine that for the reasons given, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed comparison element 1[g] of claim 1 is taught or suggested by Bose. We find, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that claim 1 is anticipated by Bose, nor has Petitioner demonstrated that to a person of ordinary skill, claim 1 would have been obvious in light of Bose.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,898,494 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,898,494
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15

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

    “operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,049,080
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2020-00487 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under §103: claims 1–4, 7, 10–13, and 16 over Golan and Martin; the remaining claims over combinations adding Ahiska, Levey, or Parulski.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “We initially concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Paper 9 (“Decision Denying Institution” or “DDI”). Specifically, we concluded that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Golan and Martin was not sufficiently supported by a rational underpinning. Dec. 26 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Accordingly, we declined to institute trial on the challenged claims of the ’233 patent. Id. Petitioner filed a request for rehearing (Paper 10, “Rehearing Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision Denying Institution. We granted that request and instituted trial (Paper 13, “Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”) on all challenged claims on all grounds set forth in the Petition. Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 16, “Patent Owner Response” or “PO. Resp.”).1 Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 25, “Petitioner’s Reply” or “Pet.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Dr. Durand testifies that “a POSITA would have understood that Martin’s teachings of critical alignment for stable transition between images of different points of view apply to electronic camera systems providing continuous zoom video output [i]mages as taught in Golan, regardless of whether a three dimensional illusion is provided.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Citing Ahiska (Ex. 1007), Border (Ex. 1009), Orimoto (Ex. 1014), and Hansen (Ex. 1019) to support his testimony, Durand further testifies that It was well known in the art that for seamless transition between two images of different points of views in continuous zoom video applications, when calibration between two cameras (e.g., the electronic calibration of Golan) is not sufficient alone (e.g., because of shocking, vibration, thermal variation, etc.), image registration of two images from two imaging sections for position matching (e.g., critical alignment of Martin) may be used. Id. ¶ 57 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5; Ex. 1014, 1:63–2:1; Ex. 1019, 1059; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42). The portion of Hansen (Ex. 1019) cited by Dr. Durand addresses how extrinsic calibration errors occur and “a method to recalibrate extrinsic parameters online to correct drift or bias.” Ex. 1019, 1059 (emphasis omitted). Orimoto discloses how misalignment occurs, irrespective of “how exactly the dual lens camera has been conditioned and adjusted by the manufacturer.” Ex. 1014, 1:63–2:1. Border addresses image registration as an alternative to correspondence (i.e., calibration). Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42. And Ahiska disclose image registration or matching, when calibration is insufficient, to provide a seamless transition between master and slave cameras and “create the quality of a continuous zoom function.” Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5 (“[i]f calibration between the [wide-angle] master and slave cameras is insufficient alone, image registration or matching can be carried out,” “transition[ing] between the master view and the slave view as seamlessly as possible to create the quality of a continuous zoom function”). Petitioner’s third and fourth reasons for combining Golan and Martin are supported by Dr. Durand’s testimony quoted above, which is in turn supported by Ahiska and Border. The portions of Border cited by Dr. Durand address image registration as an alternative to correspondence (i.e., calibration). Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42. The portions of Ahiska cited by Dr. Durand address the additional step of image registration or matching, when calibration is insufficient, to provide a seamless transition between master and slave cameras and “create the quality of a continuous zoom function.” Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5. Thus, each of Border and Ahiska show a relation between electronic calibration and registration. As such, and for the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale for combining Golan and Martin is supported by sufficient rational underpinning, based on the entirety of the record developed at trial. See KSR, 550 at 418.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends [A] Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree in electrical and/or computer engineering or a related field and 2–3 years of experience in imaging systems including optics and image processing. Pet. 5. Petitioner supports its contention with the testimony of Dr. Durand. Ex. 1003 ¶ 17. Patent Owner “adopts Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. . . .” PO Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 3; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 31–33). The level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’233 patent and the asserted prior art. Where pertinent, we apply Petitioner’s definition in making the findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “understood ‘reduce an image jump effect seen in video output images’ to mean “reduce a discontinuous image change in video output images.’” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–43). Petitioner asserts the Specification supports this proposed construction. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 10:30–40). Patent Owner “adopts, for this IPR proceeding only, Petitioner’s proposed construction for the phrase ‘reduce an image jump effect seen in video output images’ and appl[ies] it in [its] analysis herein.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 34–36). We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding this limitation and we need not expressly construe this limitation to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,661,233
• 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
• Informatica Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · CBM2015-00021 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 18–53 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 2, 8, 19–26, 29, 31–35, 37–44, and 47–53 are also unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “claim, and “it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The written description of the ’201 Patent provides specific definitions of many terms (Ex. 1001, 2:64–3:43) but does not contain a definition of “database.” The claimed database for storing a plurality of data element values corresponds to the O-DB database disclosed in the ’201 Patent. The O-DB database is part of a larger “database management system” that includes multiple databases. Id. at 5:49–6:12, Fig. 3. Similar to the other databases, the O-DB database is described as containing data and, in particular, data to be protected. Id. at 5:53–58. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (Resp. 20), the ’201 Patent does not describe the O-DB database, or any other database, as performing any other data processing or managing functions. In particular, the ’201 Patent does not describe that the O-DB database produces the compelling calling to the data protection catalogue. 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 (describing a compelling calling to a data protection catalogue, but failing to describe the compelling calling being produced by the O-DB database).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Claims 1 and 8 do not recite unencrypted data element values, and only recites “encrypted data element values.” Those claims do not specify that the “given data element value” should be encrypted or unencrypted. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s declarants (Ex. 2063 ¶ 33; Ex. 2064 ¶ 48) as their testimonies are conclusory and are unsupported by the Specification or claims of the ’201 Patent. Although the “given data element value” could be the unencrypted data element value, it need not be in the context of claim 1.” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “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 Petitioner to exclude Exhibits 2064, 2089, and 2093 and Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied. Additionally, we are also not persuaded that Dr. Direen is unqualified to testify as an expert. As Petitioner points out, Dr. Direen has knowledge, skill, experience, and training beyond degrees and is the holder of several patents. Opp. to Mot. Exclude 3–8; See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–7 (discussing additional credentials and qualifications). Given this, we are persuaded that Dr. Direen is qualified to testify as an expert as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know or understand during the relevant time frame.” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “The scheduling order states “[a] motion for observation on cross- examination provides the parties with a mechanism to draw the Board’s attention to relevant cross-examination testimony of a reply witness because no further substantive paper is permitted after the reply” and refers to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. Paper 15, 4–5. The Trial Practice Guide states: In the event that cross-examination occurs after a party has filed its last substantive paper on an issue, such cross-examination may result in testimony that should be called to the Board’s attention, but the party does not believe a motion to exclude the testimony is warranted. The Board may authorize the filing of observations to identify such testimony and responses to observations, as defined below. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767–68 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 6,321,201 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Bilski · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,321,201
• Informatica Corporation v. Protegrity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · CBM2015-00010 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 33–60 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is denied as to substitute claims 61–68 and granted as to cancellation of claims 1–32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “B. Patent Owner’s Request to Cancel Claims 1–32 In the Patent Owner’s Response and the Motion to Amend, Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1–32 of the ’281 patent. PO Resp. 2– 3; Mot. Amend 1. Patent Owner’s request to cancel these claims is not contingent on the claims being determined to be unpatentable or on the entry of the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1–32 is granted and we need not address these claims further. Paper 23. Patent Owner, subsequently, filed the Motion to Amend as Exhibit 2098. See Paper 43.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, 141 F.3d 1084, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619–20 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Independent claim 33 recites “[a] computer-implemented data processing method” that includes, among other steps, a step of “maintaining a database comprising a plurality of data portions.” Ex. 1001, 13:38–41. Similarly, independent claim 47 recites “[a] computer system” that includes, among other elements, “a database storing a plurality of data portions.” Id. at 14:47–48. As can be seen from the above, claims 33 and 47 recite that the database comprises or stores data portions. Neither of claims 33 and 47, nor any claims dependent, therefrom, recite that the database performs any other function, such as producing a compelling calling to the data protection catalogue to retrieve the data processing rules. See id. at 13:38–16:29. Indeed, unlike the parent ’201 patent, none of the claims of the ’281 patent recite a compelling calling at all. See id.; Ex. 1004, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:24–51 (amended claim 8). Notably, independent claim 8 of the parent ’201 patent recite an apparatus having a database that stores data to be protected. Ex. 1004, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:24–51 (amended claim 8). Claim 8 of the parent ’201 patent was amended during reexamination to recite that the apparatus, not the database, controls the user’s processing of the data according to the data processing rules, and the apparatus, not the database, also produces the compelling calling to the data element protection catalogue. Id. at Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate 1:41–51. The words of the claims of the ’281 patent, thus, are consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable construction.” slip op. at 10

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

    “v. Other Proposed Constructions Petitioner also proposed a construction of “encryption/encrypted” and “separate data protection table.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner also proposed a construction of “data element type.” PO Resp. 27–28. For the purposes of our review of the claims of the ’281 patent, however, no explicit construction of any other claim term is needed.” slip op. at 18

  • BurdenInstitution denied meritsDecided for petitioner

    “A party may not petition for post-grant review if it has filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the petition is filed. 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.201(a). In SecureBuy, LLC, the Board determined the 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) applied to covered business method review proceedings, but made no determination as to whether or not a dismissal without prejudice triggered the statutory bar. See SecureBuy, LLC, CBM2014-00035 (PTAB April 25, 2014) (Paper 12). Here, Petitioner’s filing of a civil action before filing the Petition did not trigger the statutory bar because the civil action was dismissed without prejudice. See id. Dismissal without prejudice does not trigger the statutory bar. See Decision 9 (citing Cyanotech Corp. v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ill., IPR2013-00401, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Dec. 19, 2013) (Paper 17) (“Excluding an action that de jure never existed from the scope of § 315(a)(1) is consistent with both relevant case law and 7 On May 4, 2015, Petitioner, via email, informed the Board of a clerical typographical error on page 11 of the Petition. The sentence starting with “[i]n the prior cases, petitioner was sued . . .” should be read as “[i]n the prior cases, petitioner was not sued . . . .” legislative history.”); Callidus Software, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00052, slip op. at 5–7 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2014) (Paper 21). “The dismissal of an action without prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought.” Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, slip op. at 16–18 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014)(Paper 166) (citing Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,402,281 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,402,281
• 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

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.