• Apple Inc. / Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00319 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–2 and 6–13 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 3–5 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, and 6–13 of the ’941 patent are unpatentable based on the challenges asserted in the Petition, but that Petitioner fails demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5 of the ’941 patent are unpatentable based on the challenges asserted in the Petition. In particular, we determine that:” slip op. at 77

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “1. “physiological information” (Claims 1–13) Petitioner argues that the Specification of the ’941 patent provides an” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “Although Patent Owner filed objections to evidence submitted with the Petition (Paper 14) and Petitioner filed objections to evidence submitted with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 12) and to evidence submitted with the Patent Owner Response (Paper 23), neither party filed a Motion to Exclude. Consequently, these objections are deemed waived. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) (“A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection.”). Petitioner also filed a list of alleged” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “IV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES Patent Owner objects to the use of inter partes reviews as unconstitutional based, at least, upon the reasons presented in the petition for certiorari that was granted in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. PO Resp. 38; see Reply 21. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review; thus, Patent Owner’s arguments are moot. Oil States Energy Servcs. LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365, 1370 (2018).” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 8,923,941 mixed
  Claim constructioncites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,923,941
• EMC Corporation v. Actividentity, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 2, 2018 · IPR2017-00338 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 7–9, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Wood and obvious over Wood combined with Neuman IETF.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Exclusive Licensee’s Response does not appear to identify or provide any assessment of the level of skill possessed by an ordinary artisan in the field of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Exclusive Licensee’s declarant, Dr. David Goldschlag, however, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent field with three or four years of academic or industry experience in communications. This assessment would include a person with a master’s degree in the aforementioned fields with coursework in computer network security and one or two years of experience in communications. Ex. 2007 ¶ 20. We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’685 patent is a person who has a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent field and 3–4 years of professional or academic experience in computer systems, network security, or network communications, or a master’s or doctorate degree and 1–2 years of professional experience in computer systems, network security, or network communications, or equivalent academic experience. C. Prior Art References and Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability” slip op. at 9

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

    “The ’685 patent does not define expressly the term “security policy.” Petitioner’s proffered construction, that a “security policy” is “rules specifying conditions for accessing a secure resource,” is generally consistent with the use of the term in the Specification, including the claims. For example, the Specification explains “[i]n dependence upon the security policy . . . an authorization method . . . is selected.” Ex. 1001, 7:50–54. The Specification also explains, “the authorization method is varied because a security policy . . . is different.” Id. at 6:3–7. The Specification provides some examples of the parameters or conditions that a security policy considers. For instance, a security policy may consider the requested time of access, and may indicate that no access is provided between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. Ex. 1001, 7:55–58. The Specification indicates that a security policy may vary based on the location of the user requesting access. Id. at 9:55–62. The Specification also indicates a security policy may require the use of different user authentication devices. Id. at 8:23–45, 9:8–15, 9:28–37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 42. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “security policy” consistent with its use in the ’685 patent is “a rule or set of rules specifying conditions for accessing a secure resource.”” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Exclusive Licensee’s arguments, however, are unavailing. Wood’s Figure 4 and the accompanying text demonstrate that Wood discloses recording (encoding) the received user identification data. Figure 4 of Wood, shown below, illustrates relations between login credentials, session credentials and a cookie encoding of a session token. Ex. 1011, 4:15–16. Figure 4 of Wood shown above, annotated by Petitioner, shows the encoding of login credentials. As Wood explains, [t]ypically, login credentials encoded in login credentials structure 410 are obtained from a principal via browser client and serve as evidence that the principal (e.g., a human user) is entitled to a particular identity. Accordingly, login credentials structure 410 encodes a userId and a domainId within which the userId should uniquely correspond to a principal. Specific login credentials, e.g., a password, a certificate, results of a biometric process, a response to an Enigma challenge or results of a smart card interrogation, etc. are encoded in login credentials structure 410, as a tagged value. . . . Of note, principal ids, authorizations and other contents encoded in the session credential may be read by components of the security architecture, . . . security architectures employing facilities described herein ensure that information contained in the session credential is provably constant once set by an authentication service. . . . . . . . Referring again to session credentials structure 420, a session id, a principal id, a trust level, group ids, a creation time and an expiration time are encoded in both in encrypted portion 421 and clear text portion 422. The session id is a unique identifier for a persistent session maintained by the security architecture. . . . Principal id encodes an identifier for a principal to which the security architecture has resolved login credentials. For example, a login credential including a username jdoe and a password corresponding to jdoe may be resolved by the security architecture to a unique principal id associated with John. Q. Doe of the shipping and receiving department, having an employee badge number of 12345, etc.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Exclusive Licensee appears to conflate Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner first argues that it would have required no more than routine skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wood and Neuman IETF, because Neuman IETF’s framework was designed expressly to be adapted for integration with many different types of systems for authorizing users to access resources. Pet. 62. Petitioner then argues that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to do so because he would have readily recognized that the risk associated with access requests differ with time, location, and/or type of communication link. Id. at 65. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that by taking these factors into account, an access control system can achieve more fine-grained access control that can be tailored according to different circumstances. Id. Petitioner points out that Wood describes such a rationale. Id. (citing Ex. 1011, 2:49–55; Ex. 1002 ¶ 154). Petitioner, therefore, provides a rational basis to combine Wood and Neuman IETF along with sufficient reason to do so. Whether Neuman IETF expressly uses the word “risk” is of no moment, as long as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the benefits of combining the teachings of Wood and Neuman IETF and would have had reason and the ability to do so. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). d. Conclusion on Claims 1, 9, and 19 We find, on the basis of the evidence and explanation provided by Petitioner, that the combination of Wood and Neuman IETF teaches or suggests the recited limitation “determining a security policy from a plurality of predetermined security policies based on previously stored policy data and the received indication of the type of communication link between the workstation and the security server, the geographic location of the workstation, or the time of access of the workstation” of independent claim 1, and similarly recited limitations of independent claims 9 and 19. For the reasons stated above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of the teachings of Wood and Neuman IETF teaches or suggests all of the limitations recited by independent claims 1, 9, and 19 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to combine the teachings of the references.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 9,098,685 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,098,685
• Apple Inc. / Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00321 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–21 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board denied the contingent motion to amend substitute claims 22–29.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “review of claims 14–21 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’941 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311– 319. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Valencell, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted the instant inter partes review as to the challenged claims.2 Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”). Fitbit, Inc. (also “Petitioner”) filed a corresponding Petition (IPR2017-01556, Paper 2), accompanied by a Motion for Joinder (IPR2017-01556, Paper 3), challenging claims 14–21 of the ’941 patent, and we granted the Motion for Joinder and instituted review of the challenged claims based on the corresponding Petition (IPR2017-01556, Paper 9).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;5 and (4), when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.6 Graham v. 5 Petitioner proposes an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Pollonini, exceeds this assessed level. Ex. 1004; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 6–11. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assessment or propose an alternative assessment. See MTA 11. To the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment. 6 In the instituted proceeding, Patent Owner does not raise arguments or present evidence based on the presence of such objective evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Applied Materials, 692 F.3d 1289, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The party seeking the patent bears the burden to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness with evidence of secondary considerations, such as commercial success.”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., Case IPR2014-00087, 2015 WL 1546574, at *11 (PTAB 2015) (“Although it is Patent Owner's burden to introduce evidence supporting such objective indicia, see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996), the ultimate burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner, see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).”), aff’d, In re Nuvasive, Inc., 689 Fed. Appx. 954 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see Prelim. Resp. 4–6. Therefore, this factor does not play into our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges to any claim on any ground. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court cautions us against “the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 36.” slip op. at 12

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

    “6. “PPG sensor” (claims 14–21) In the Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term “PPG sensor” as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Id. at 10–11. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner proposes a slight modification to this interpretation (PO Resp. 9), to which Petitioner does not object (see Reply 1–4). Patent Owner now contends that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “PPG sensor” is “an optical sensor which obtains a plethysmogram that results from blood flow modulations caused by the subject’s heartbeat.” PO Resp. 9 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2005, 1. We agree that the term should include express reference to “an optical sensor,” rather than merely to “an optically obtained plethysmogram.” Inst. Dec. 10; see Ex. 1001, 1:64–2:6. We determine that our previous construction, as modified by Patent Owner, is the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term.” slip op. at 10

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

    “have had reason to combine the teachings of Kosuda and Maekawa in the manner proffered by Petitioner. Initially, we note that although Patent Owner has suggested an alternative solution to the signal-to-noise problem, neither Patent Owner nor its declarant provides support for their contention that the alternative solution is superior to that taught by the combination of the teachings of Kosuda and Maekawa. See PO Resp. 24; Ex. 2010 ¶ 90. But even if it had, as Petitioner notes, “the law does not require that a particular combination be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the claimed invention.” Reply 8; see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The question is whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination, not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the existence of potentially superior alternatives does not negate the combination of teachings proposed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason for combining the teachings of Kosuda and Maekawa to achieve the device recited in claim 14 of the ’941 patent.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,923,941 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,923,941
• Inauth, Inc. v. Msignia, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 10, 2018 · IPR2018-00150 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–25 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Application of Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Nevertheless, unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed, and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972). slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that only the term: “generating a challenge” recited in each independent claim requires express construction. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 4–5; see Paper 11. Moreover, Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that “generating a challenge” should be construed as “generating a request for information.” Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 4. Nevertheless, Patent Owner further clarifies that the “challenge” is a challenge to the computer that is to be authenticated. Prelim. Resp. 4. We believe that this clarification is apparent from the context in which the construed term is used in the independent claims. See Pet. 13 (“As used in the specification, the challenge is a request to the computer to provide information based on selected minutia.”). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt the parties’ agreed upon construction, in view of Patent Owner’s clarification that the challenge is to the computer seeking authentication, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Application of Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Nevertheless, unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed, and thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added); accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972). slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success

    “With respect to Claims 1, 24, and 25, to the extent Patent Owner contends that Etchegoyen does not anticipate because it does not disclose a single embodiment that uses both the request/response protocol (i.e., challenge/response protocol) to obtain a fingerprint and the typical-upgrade ratio to analyze the fingerprint, it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to modify the embodiments disclosed to include both aspects. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 151). Patent Owner contends, however, that Etchegoyen fails to disclose the limitations of claim 1 relating to “anticipated changes” including “storing information associated with one or more identities, wherein the information stored for an identity includes (a) data values associated with that identity; and (b) information regarding anticipated changes to one or more of the stored data values associated with that identity” and “determining whether the response is allowable, wherein such determining comprises using the stored information regarding anticipated changes to the stored data values associated with the identity to determine whether a data value used to form the response is based on an acceptable change to a corresponding stored data value.” Prelim. Resp. 7– 11. For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its assertion that Etchegoyen discloses each and every element or teaches or suggests all of the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 24, and 25.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,559,852
• Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KGNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01863 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 20, 21, 23, 30, 34, and 35 not shown unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds for failure to establish a sufficient reason to combine …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find the Zadok testimony in this regard persuasive as it presents more than just the educational level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposal is more helpful as it identifies the familiar objects of the technology used by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention: operating systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file systems (e.g., a FAT file system), device drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces). Ex. 1003 ¶ 28. We, therefore, determine that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “required to enable the transfer of files from the ION node to the workstation. In this case, we have testimony from Petitioner’s expert opining that the emulation of the ION node as a disk would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand Pucci as accomplishing the file transfer using “existing SCSI hard disk drivers.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 133. On the other hand, we have testimony of Mr. Gafford that explains Pucci’s workstation program as being involved in the request of the A-to-D converted data by “implement[ing] specific functions by enabling the reading or writing of specific block addresses within the ION drive.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 65. That is, Dr. Zadok’s view of Pucci is that once the ION system is set up to emulate a hard disk, no other software is required to transfer data. In contrast, Mr. Gafford’s testimony does not negate Pucci’s use of the SCSI protocol, but ascribes to the workstation application control over the data read, such that the software is required to enable the transfer data. In this regard, we credit the testimony of Mr. Gafford over the testimony of Dr. Zadok, as it is more consistent with the disclosure of Pucci. Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating that it is “within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate”); see also, In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). As we stated above with regard to the file system limitation, Pucci’s principle of operation” slip op. at 41

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In view of Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Pucci and Kepley, as asserted by Petitioner, to achieve the challenged claims. Our determination is based on two findings: a) First, we determine that Pucci does not teach or suggest a reason for the use of a file system for storing digitized voice messages at the ION node; and b) Second, we determine that achieving computer-to-computer file transfer, as taught by Kepley, and the “traditional” nature of the substitution proffered by Petitioner, are not sufficient motivations to modify Pucci, in light of the changes to Pucci that would impermissibly alter Pucci’s principle of operation.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also argues that the ’746 patent works the same way as Pucci in this regard, and, therefore, buffering in real time could be handled as a file even though there is no file at the acquisition time. Reply, 8; Tr. 7 Claim 1 of the ’746 patent, for instance, requires that the “digitized analog data is stored in a file system of the data storage memory as at least one file of digitized analog data,” and Petitioner has identified the “digitized analog data” as the data from the A-to-D converters. Pet. 2728 (emphasis omitted). 24:1221. This argument risks analyzing Pucci in hindsight, with the knowledge of what is disclosed in the ’746 patent. It would be improper, absent any other evidence, for us to rely on the ’746 patent disclosure regarding real-time input to ascertain whether Pucci suggests handling its raw data in the same way. See Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1344 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We are troubled by the Board’s citation to the ’011 patent’s written description and the corresponding appearance of using the ’011 patent to find claim 49 unpatentable.”). Instead, as stated above, we rely on what Pucci teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, without the benefit of the ’746 patent disclosure. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (“It is difficult but necessary that the decisionmaker forget what he or she has been taught . . . about the claimed invention and cast the mind back to the time the invention was made (often as here many years), to occupy the mind of one skilled in the art.”).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,504,746 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,504,746
• Dell Inc. / Riverbed Technology, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2017 · IPR2017-00364 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 25 unpatentable because it did not establish a reasonable expectation of success combining the cited references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are partially consistent with Patent Owner’s view, but, nonetheless, Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be the “ultimate generalist.” Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 16–17 (citing Ex. 2015, 84:13–20). We do not observe a meaningful differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Moreover, Dr. Creusere appears to satisfy either assessment. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment, but, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties do not argue a claim construction for any terms. See generally PO Resp.; Reply. In the Decision to Institute, we did not construe any terms. Dec. 4–5. We determine that no terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those claim terms or phrases that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131– 132), on this record, we cannot reconcile paragraphs 131–132 of his declaration when faced with the plethora of his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21– 83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices. Petitioner’s modeling, simulation, and testing theory fails to satisfy sufficiently its “reasonable expectation of success” theory evidentiary burden pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (it is “improper” to argue an obviousness theory on the basis that “it would have been ‘obvious to try’ . . . to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result.”). Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“obviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into ‘a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,’ and ‘merely throwing metaphorical darts at a board’ in hopes of arriving at a successful result.”). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit explained in Kubin, the Board should not use hindsight based on allegations that require that the person having ordinary skill in the art to randomly pick from a board filled with combinational prior art possibilities. Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1359. To paraphrase, Petitioner is attempting to bypass its evidentiary burden of having to proffer particular evidence of a specific combination, which would teach the “faster than” limitation recited in claims 1, 21, and 25 by instead repeating that “modeling, simulation, and testing” leads to a reasonable expectation of success (Pet. 28); whereas, in this proceeding, the number of permutations and variables are “unlimited” and “impossible” to address, as acknowledged by Dr. Creusere (Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13– 24, 143:20–144:3). That is, Petitioner’s attempt at crafting a theory of obviousness using non-specific teachings from Franaszek and Osterlund that allegedly demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success; this attempt, however, falls significantly short of the Federal Circuit’s requirements. Another obstacle to our reliance on Dr. Creusere’s vacillating opinions is Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D. Dr. Zeger opines in his declaration that Franaszek illustrates complex choices a person having ordinary skill in the art would face in considering whether and how to modify Franaszek in light of Osterlund on this record. Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 152–169. In particular, Dr. Zeger opines that Franaszek’s approach requires numerous steps that each create delays before compression occurs, which are illustrated in Dr. Zeger’s figure below. Id.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Put another way, we do not find that Petitioner demonstrates a “reasonable expectation of success” when Dr. Creusere acknowledges that a person having ordinary skill in the art did not specify whether to discard or keep Franaszek’s sampling approach, or would use only Franaszek’s teachings of compression algorithms, or incorporate other such algorithms, or what data type or data types an intended system teaches would be created to compress, or what specific goals and objectives the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve. Compare id. at 75:18–76:19, 126:20–127:1, 76:24–78:6, 94:4–12, 96:4–98:14 with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121–134; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 165–167. Instead, Petitioner simply asserts, in a conclusory manner, that “[b]ecause the relevant art is predictable and compression algorithms and transmission times may be modeled, simulated, and easily tested, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these various teachings found in the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention” (emphasis added). Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132). Notably, Dr. Creusere acknowledges that the number of possible permutations faced by a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been “unlimited” and that it was “impossible” for him to address “all the permutations of those possibilities.” Id. at 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20– 144:3. Although Dr. Creusere opines that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131– 132), on this record, we cannot reconcile paragraphs 131–132 of his declaration when faced with the plethora of his own testimony on cross-examination to the contrary, such as his acknowledgement of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. E.g., Ex. 2015, 81:21– 83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. Stated differently, in his initial position, Dr. Creusere testifies a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131–132), while his later testimony vacillates to a stance that makes it difficult to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success–– i.e., the existence of “unlimited” permutations that were “impossible” to address. Ex. 2015, 81:21–83:24, 84:13–24, 143:20–144:3. We find this testimony contradictory. In summary, neither the Petition, Dr. Creusere’s declaration, nor his deposition testimony provide any indication as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would select among the countless permutations or further narrow the set of choices. Petitioner’s modeling, simulation, and testing theory fails to satisfy sufficiently its “reasonable expectation of success” theory evidentiary burden pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (it is “improper” to argue an obviousness theory on the basis that “it would have been ‘obvious to try’ . . . to vary all parameters or try each of numerous possible choices until one possibly arrived at a successful result.”). Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“obviousness law in general recognizes an important distinction between combining known options into ‘a finite” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 9,116,908 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,116,908
• Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2017 · IPR2016-00922 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–9, 11–19, and 21 unpatentable as obvious over Reed and Nishida because it did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “appropriate factors identified by our reviewing court and utilized by other panels to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 17–18. We agree with Petitioner that it is not necessary to consider every factor or to weigh the factors equally in order to assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 2 (quoting In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Here, we may rely on Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 34) and the teachings of the prior art to evaluate Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In particular, Reed and Nishida identify the types of problems encountered in the art prior art solutions to these problems, and the sophistication of the technology. E.g., Ex. 1006, 1:13–55; Ex. 1009, 1:10– 36; see, e.g., Ex. 1007, 1:8–32, 2:12–64; Ex. 1008, 1:11–54; Ex. 1010, 145– 160; see also Ex. 1010, Preface (“The aim of this book is to combine in a single volume the fundamental principles of weft and warp knitting in such a manner that its contents are useful to readers in education, industry or commerce. It thus [fulfills] the long felt need for a comprehensive up-to-date textbook explaining this important sector of textile technology.”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “unitary construction” means “a textile element having a unitary construction and having a first area and a second area.” Pet. 6. As Petitioner notes, this is the construction that this panel gave to the same term appearing in the substitute claims of the ’011 patent. adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Case IPR2013- 00067, slip op. at 16–17 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2014) (Paper 60). We further note that the ’749 patent’s Specification provides that “[a]s defined for purposes of the present invention, unitary construction is intended to express a configuration wherein portions of a textile element are not joined together by seams or other connections, as depicted with textile element 40 in FIG. 8.” Ex. 1001, 6:42–46 (emphasis added); see IPR2013-00067, Ex. 1002, 6:41–46 (identical disclosure). The ’011 patent and the ’749 patent share the same Specification (apart from their claims), neither party contested our construction of this term in the appeal of our decision in the inter partes review of the claims of the ’011 patent, and Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term in this proceeding. Therefore, in view of the express definition of the phrase “unitary construction” in the Specification of the ’749 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation for this term. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. “wide-tube circular knitting machine” (Claims 9 and 19) We determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “wide-tube circular knitting machine” is “a circular knitting machine forming body garment sized, tubular textile structures, including those having a diameter that ranges from 10 inches to 20 inches.” See Inst. Dec. 9–11. Neither party contests this construction. See Tr. 20:5–13, 37:11–17.” slip op. at 13

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

    “8 Patent Owner contends that Reed is not analogous art. PO Resp. 34–36. In particular, Patent Owner contends that Reed is not from the same field of endeavor as the challenged claims and that Reed’s teachings are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the recited methods are involved. Id. at 34–35. Because Reed is directed to the manufacture of all types of garments, including footwear (Reply 12–13; see Ex. 1006, 1:33–44), and Reed is related directly to preparation of garments layouts from a knitted textile structure (Reply 14–15; see Ex. 1006, 2:29– 35), we are persuaded that Reed is analogous art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,749
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00623 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–12, 14–20, 23–27, and 29–31 are unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds; claims 13 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “of a “clear” channel is “a channel that is not already in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system” and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “occupied” channel is “a channel that already is in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system.”” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in the wireless communications field.” E.g., 620 Pet. 11 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–13); see 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melendez,7 adopt this assessment for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. We note that both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant exceed this assessment (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–16) and are competent to testify regarding the lower assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and, for purposes of this Final Written Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt this assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. slip op. at 14

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

    “Id. Thus, Petitioner argues that, because multiple tests must be applied to determine the continued presence of interference regardless of the source, limiting “occupied” to NFH communications systems is overly narrow. Nevertheless, the words chosen by the patentee to describe its invention have significance. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.”). As noted above, “occupied” is only used in the Specification with respect to NFH communications systems, and neither claims 4 and 19 nor their base claims nor the intervening claims specify a single or multiple tests. Therefore, we find Petitioner’s arguments, which attempt to incorporate the teachings of “bad” and “good” channels from elsewhere in the Specification into the interpretation of these claim limitations, unpersuasive. See Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’”); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” slip op. at 17

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

    “4. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, we discern no other claim terms that require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting to allow us to construe the terms “occupied” and “clear,” we relied less on Dr. Ding’s testimony regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see PO Resp. 7.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,873,500 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,873,500
• Qualcomm IncorporatedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00620 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–12, 14–20, 23–27, and 29–31 are unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds; claims 13 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “F. Assessment of Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in the wireless communications field.” E.g., 620 Pet. 11 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–13); see 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melendez,7 adopt this assessment for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. We note that both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant exceed this assessment (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–16) and are competent to testify regarding the lower assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and, for purposes of this Final Written Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt this assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “1. “hopping sequence” (Claims 1, 14, 16, and 29 and others) In the institution decisions, we determined that, in light of the Specification of the ’500 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “hopping sequence” is “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” E.g., 620 Dec. on Inst. 10–11 (citing 620 Pet. 11–12). Patent Owner does not contest this construction. PO Resp. 6–7. For the reasons set forth in the Decision on Institution in Case IPR2016-00620, we remain persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “hopping sequence.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner also provides a persuasive rationale for combining the teachings of Dabak and Kockmann. Id. at 39–40. Petitioner asserts that they are both references directed to the same problem, namely, “to communication performance improvements through adapted frequency hopping to avoid channels disturbed by interference.” Id. at 40 (citing Dabak, Abstract; Kockmann, 2:49–3:20; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). In addition, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the teachings of Dabak regarding the MSD technique in view of the teachings of Kockmann “to utilize multiple channels to communicate with the slave device over the subset of communication channels according to an adapted hopping sequence” in order to accomplish the shared goals of these references. Id. at 40 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 113); see In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.”). According to Petitioner, the combination of these teachings “is a simple use of known teachings to yield predictable results.” Id. (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)). Based on our review of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates that combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16 and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Dabak and Kockmann to achieve the methods of claim 1 and the devices of claim 16. See 620 Pet. 17–20, 33–35, 38–40, 48–49. We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann. Moreover, because Petitioner’s arguments for the obviousness of independent claim 16 over Dabak and Kockmann rely on the arguments and evidence presented with respect to independent claim 1, we also conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 16 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann, as well as on its related challenges to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 29–31. See 620 Pet. 25–26, 40 (claim 2; citing Dabak, 7:57–60, 8:1–2, Fig. 1; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 51, 52), 26–27, 40 (claim 3; citing Dabak, 2:39–40, 3:1–5, 3:50–54, 3:60–62; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54, 55), 27–28, 42 (claim 5; citing Dabak, 7:57–67; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 57), 28, 44 (claim 8; citing Dabak, 2:58–59; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 59), 44–47 (claim 9; citing Kockmann, 7:44–47, 8:39–48; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 136, 137), 31, 47 (claim 12; citing Dabak, Fig. 3B; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 65), 31–32, 47 (claim 14; citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69–75, 152), 32–33, 48 (claim 15; citing Dabak, 3:1–5, 7:57–” slip op. at 31

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

    “Patent Owner contends, however, that the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. In particular, Patent Owner contends that, “[a]s described in Kockmann, ‘disturbed’ does not in fact mean ‘occupied,’ but rather it only means that ‘[a] disturbed carrier frequency is thus a carrier frequency onto which a signal is modulated that exceeds a specific threshold.’” PO Resp. 14 (citing Kockmann, 6:43–49). Patent Owner contends that determining whether a channel is “occupied” “requires analysis beyond the measurements called for by Kockmann (i.e.[,] determining more than just the mere presence of a modulated signal ‘that exceeds a specific threshold,’ but rather whether its source was FH or NFH).” Id. at 15; see 620 Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 33–37. Initially, Petitioner again states that Kockmann discloses that “[d]isturbance thereby means that either a disturbance in the actual sense or an occupancy by some other transmitter is present.” Kockmann, 6:41–43 (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends, however, “that a channel ‘occupied’ by an NFH system and a channel ‘disturbed’ by another transmitter are somehow different because an occupancy determination requires additional ‘analysis.’” Reply 10. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not show where the claims recite one type of analysis or prohibit another. Id. Thus, we find that the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 4 apply equally to claim 19. Based on our review of the arguments and evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4 and 19 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,873,500 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,873,500
• Apple Inc. / HTC Corp. et al. v. Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00923 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lambrecht; claims 4 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Lambrecht with Artieri and Moore, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). The words of a claim generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, and that is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, but are a part of, and are read in light of, the specification. See Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although it is improper to read a limitation from the specification into the claims, the claims still must be read in view of the specification of which they are a part. See Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004). slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Stone, Petitioners assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’789 patent would be an individual who possesses (1) an accredited Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering; and (2) at least three years of experience in the fields of data compression and overall computer system architecture. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 74–77). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Thornton, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’789 patent would be an individual who possesses (1) an accredited Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent degree; and (2) at least two to three years of experience in signal/image processing and computer architecture at both the systems and micro-architecture levels. Ex. 2003 ¶ 27. In lieu of the two to three years of experience, Dr. Thornton testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’789 patent may hold a Master’s or other graduate degree in electrical or computer engineering with a focus in computer architecture and signal/image processing, along with one year of relevant experience. Id. Putting aside the subtle distinctions in the assessments of the level of skill in the art put forth by both declarants, Dr. Thornton testifies that, if he were to apply Dr. Stone’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, his “analysis and conclusions would remain unchanged.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 28. Because Dr. Stone’s assessment of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’789 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt it and apply it to our evaluation below, but note that our conclusions would remain the same under Dr. Thornton’s assessment.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Lambrecht together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, we agree with Petitioners that, when Lambrecht’s PCI bus 120 is placed in multimedia mode, it allows real time, multimedia data transfers between multimedia device 144D (which Petitioners identify as the decoder (Pet. 15)) and main memory 110. See Pet. 13–14, 17–19; Pet. Reply 3–7. Lambrecht discloses that “multimedia devices 142D–146D communicate with each other and with CPU 102 and main memory 110 via the PCI bus 120, as is well known in the art.” Ex. 1032, 27:57–59. Lambrecht further discloses that “multimedia devices 142D–146D also communicate data between using the PCI bus signal lines 120 when the PCI bus 120 is in the multimedia mode.” Id. at 27:59–62; see also id. at Fig. 21 (illustrating how PCI bus 120 is coupled to multimedia devices 142D–146D and PCI bridge chipset 106, which, in turn, interfaces with main memory 110). Based on these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in Figure 21 of Lambrecht, multimedia devices 142D–146D have access to main memory 110 in multimedia mode because Lambrecht discloses that multimedia devices 142D–146D communicate both with each other and main memory 110 via PCI bus 120, and also communicate data using the same PCI bus signal lines 120 when PCI bus 120 is in multimedia mode. See Ex. 1030 ¶ 78 (addressing the limitations recited in independent claim 1). In addition, upon considering these cited disclosures in Lambrecht, Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Stone, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, when PCI bus 120 in Figure 21 is placed in multimedia mode, it “provides for real-time[,] multimedia data transfers.” Ex. 1044 ¶ 4. We credit Dr. Stone’s testimony in this regard because it is consistent with Lambrecht’s description of Figure 21. See id. (citing Ex. 1032, 26:53–56, 27:57–62). Moreover, there is nothing in reference to Figure 21 and its corresponding description suggesting that, when PCI bus 120 is placed in multimedia mode, multimedia device 144D is precluded from accessing main memory 110 and operating in real time.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 5,812,789 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,812,789

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.