• The Boeing Company v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2024-00761 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–24 not unpatentable because the asserted references did not show the glass element propagating a modified stress wave to generate tensile stress at the interface.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’684 patent “would have had an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering or a related field, and at least five years of experience using laser systems to characterize and test mechanical behavior in materials” and that “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner” slip op. at 8

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

    “Both parties maintain that no claim term needs to be construed. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40); PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner, however, provides an express construction for limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and the similar limitation of independent claim 13, namely limitation [13.c]. PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). To resolve the controversy before us, we determine that these limitations require express construction. 1. “the glass element is configured to propagate and modify a stress wave to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile stress between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [1.d]) and “propagating and modifying a stress wave through the glass element to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile force between the substrate and the coating” (limitation [13.c]) Patent Owner argues these limitations mean “changing the profile of the laser generated compressive wave and propagating the wave profile as modified to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 25). Petitioner does not refute this proposed construction and, during the oral argument, Petitioner confirmed it agrees with the proposed construction. Tr. 8:16–9:12. We so no reason to depart from the parties agreed-upon construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Accordingly, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adopt the parties’ construction of limitations [1.d] and [13.c].” slip op. at 10

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

    “a shock in the compression wave in the fused silica substrate. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Wang-Dissertation’s fused silica substrate modifies the compression waveform, we would not be persuaded that the fused silica substrate propagates the modified wave to the free surface of the coating, which upon reflection from the free surface as a tension wave generates a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface, as limitation [1.d] requires. In view of the presence of tension-wave-1 in Wang-Dissertation’s experiments, we find Petitioner has not demonstrated persuasively that the fused silica substrate propagates a modified stress wave to the free surface of the coating to generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Also, we find credible Dr. Gupta’s unrebutted testimony that any modified compression wave would attenuate in the substrate and not propagate to the free surface coating or generate a tensile stress at the coating/substrate interface. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 93–98. Petitioner does not dispute that the experiments in Wang-Dissertation include tension-wave-1. See Ex. 1005, 65 (“The experimental picture is complicated somewhat by the presence of a tensile wave, reflected from the back of the confining layer.”). Nor does Petitioner dispute that Wang-Dissertation discloses that the tension-wave-1 propagates faster than the compression-wave-1 and eventually overtakes compression-wave-1. See id. at 65–66 (“Being tensile, it propagates faster that the peak compressive stress, and faster than the low stress tail of the main pulse. It eventually overtakes the compressive pulse and linear dissipative mechanisms govern the final thickness of the shock.”). Rather, Petitioner relies on Dr. Wang’s testimony regarding the timing of the waves through the sample and argues that tension-wave-1 does not overtake compression-wave-1 in the fused silica substrate. Pet. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶ 5). Dr. Wang testifies that the peak stress from tension-wave-1 is about 2 ns behind the peak of compression-wave-1 and will not reach the interface before the reflected tensile peak of compression-wave-1 reaches the interface in 0.3 ns. Ex. 1038 ¶ 5. However, as Dr. Gupta persuasively explains, the delay between tension-wave-1 and compression-wave-1 depends on the properties of the confining layer, and Wang-Dissertation acknowledges that these properties are not well controlled. Ex. 2011 ¶ 54; see also Ex. 1005, 65 (“The surface properties of that confining layer are not well controlled.”).” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “claimed subject matter. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. In doing so, Petitioner continues to rely on Wang-Dissertation to disclose limitation [1.d] of independent claim 1 and limitation [13.c] of independent claim 13. Pet. 35–38; Pet. Reply 23–24. Petitioner does not put forth any further obviousness rationale in this ground based on Wang-Dissertation for teaching these limitations. For the same reasons discussed in sections II.C.2–3, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Wang-Dissertation teaches or suggests limitations [1.d] and [13.c]. Thus, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Wang-Dissertation renders obvious the subject matter set forth in claims 4, 6, 9, 15, 17, 20, 23, and 24, which depend from independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,487,684 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,487,684
• Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. American GNC CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00667 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103 over Fujiyoshi, Kumar, Cox, and Townsend, and independently over Mitamura and Townsend.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “other things, it “identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). “[T]he IPR petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate that its petitions are not time-barred under § 315(b) based on a complaint served on a real party in interest more than a year earlier.” Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, “an IPR petitioner’s initial identification of the real parties in interest should be accepted unless and until disputed by a patent owner,” who, in turn, “must produce some evidence that tends to show that a particular third party should be named a real party in interest.” Id. at 1242, 1244 (footnote omitted). Whether a non-party is a real party in interest is a “highly fact-” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or similar degree, with two to three years of practical experience designing and/or implementing systems that include sensors for measuring movement, such as acceleration and rotational position. . . . A skilled artisan could also have had more formal education and less practical experience, or vice versa. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12–14). Patent Owner states that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’122 Patent would have at least a five years of relevant experience in the development of control systems for inertial navigation, MEMS semiconductor processing, and analog circuit design.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶ 57). We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’122 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that we would reach the same conclusions applying either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

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

    “that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). In this context, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms ... that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party argues that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 6; PO Resp. 18. Accordingly, we do not explicitly construe any term.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Record evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that a skilled artisan would have had reason to look to Kumar for further implementation details of a circuit that performs functions like those performed by Fujiyoshi. See Pet 24–26. For example, Dr. Young testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kumar discloses the details, at a granular level, of Fujiyoshi’s capacitive sensing systems and would have looked to Kumar for understanding of how to implement Fujiyoshi’s system. Ex. 1002 ¶ 145. Patent Owner does not point to persuasive evidence to rebut this opinion. Moreover, Petitioner cites to Kumar, not only for an explicit disclosure of capacitive pickoff signals, but also for its disclosure of both DC bias and AC carrier signals and recognizing the applicability of an AC carrier pickoffs that operates without DC bias. Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1005 3:65–4:2, 6:29–36). We credit Dr. Young’s testimony on this issue and agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art, looking at Fujiyoshi’s description of capacitive sensing systems, would be motivated to look to Kumar for its more detailed teachings of the implementation details of such systems and would combine these details to arrive at limitation 1(a). We determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fujiyoshi and Kumar in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,508,122 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,508,122
• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01434 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claimed design was obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “shown that Chen686, alone or in combination with the various secondary references, teaches or suggests a camera having the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’435 patent’s claim over Chen686 and the asserted secondary references.” slip op. at 30

  • Other 314aNot reached

    “These deficiencies in analysis raise the question of whether the Petition adequately identifies the number of actual challenges, and evidence supporting each, with the degree of particularity required of petitions in our forum. The Petition does not explain why so many grounds are necessary under the circumstances or why the Board should impose on Patent Owner the burden of defending against so many challenges. See generally Pet. An inter partes review based on 24 distinct grounds raised against a single claim, supported by analysis lacking in particularity, potentially burdens Patent Owner unduly and makes inefficient use of the Board’s resources. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019),22 56 (“The AIA was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69 (Post grant reviews were meant to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”)). Because we understand enough of the Petition’s analysis to address each group of asserted grounds on the merits, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based solely on this issue.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in industrial design or an equivalent field, or two years of experience designing cameras or camera housings.” Pet. 11 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In its claim construction section, Petitioner states that the ’435 patent “encompasses a rectangular body with flat faces, a rectangular lens cover extending outward from the front of the body, rectangular buttons/access elements, and rectangles for displays” and “[a]s a whole . . . gives an ordinary designer an overall visual impression of a rectangular design for a camera/camera housing.” Pet. 12 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 25–26). These descriptions are incredibly general and do not provide an adequate understanding of the overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Moreover, we do not find them helpful in our analysis and, therefore, do not adopt them as a claim construction. Patent Owner does not explicitly address claim construction. See” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
• Google LLC v. Motion Offense, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01313 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 19, 20, and 51 based on the asserted obviousness ground over Houston, Garcia, and Wu.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. 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). Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us. We understand the “at least” phrase to indicate that a POSITA would have a minimum of 2 years of experience in the field of software development and do not agree with Patent Owner that including such minimum makes the proposed definition improperly indefinite. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s statement as our definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 9

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

    “At this stage, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Houston and Garcia teach the required synchronization of folder metadata. Given that the ’215 patent provides no explanation of what is meant by synchronizing folder metadata, we construe that requirement as encompassing synchronization of the metadata of files contained in a folder. Accordingly, based on the evidence and arguments currently of record, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has satisfied its burden for claim element 1o.” slip op. at 37

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

    “We agree that Patent Owner’s contention that Garcia is directed to actions taken by a single user at a single client device is inconsistent with Garcia’s description of a system “for enabling a user to synchronize, manage, and share files and folders across a plurality of client devices and a synchronization server.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Nor are Patent Owner’s other attorney arguments persuasive. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner does not point to aspects of the cited references that meet this criterion. “[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive as relying on an alleged inability to modify the specific implementations disclosed in Houston in light of Garcia. However, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“[c]ombining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 425) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). Patent Owner’s attorney arguments are not persuasive evidence that the proffered combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner cites” slip op. at 29

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “those raised in the Dropbox litigation, because Garcia is not included in that litigation. With respect to Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner deliberately decided not to do a full Sotera stipulation,”11 we highlight that in Sand Revolution II, the panel found Petitioner’s stipulation that it would not pursue in district court litigation the same grounds as those asserted in the IPR “mitigates to some degree the concerns of duplicative efforts” and “weighs marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11–12 (June 16, 2020) (informative). Also, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that NXP USA does not allow stipulations after the Petition is filed. NXP USA states that “the only appropriate time for a petitioner to offer a stipulation . . . is prior to the Board’s decision of whether to institute review” (NXP USA, Paper 13 at 4), which is the case here. Under these circumstances, we find that factor 4 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 47

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,044,215
• Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2022 · IPR2019-01363 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–3 were held unpatentable as obvious over Li; the Board did not reach the alternative Li and Motte ground.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “For the reasons discussed below, after considering the post-remand briefing, as well as the record previously developed during trial and the Federal Circuit’s decision, we conclude that Sling has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “5 Citing the testimony of Dr. Storer, Sling asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of the ’273 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in web page and Internet technology or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in web page and Internet technology. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Uniloc “does not offer a competing definition for purposes of this proceeding.” PO Resp. 10. Because we find Petitioner’s proposed definition generally consistent with the subject matter of the ’273 patent and cited references, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. 6 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which, therefore, do not constitute part of our analysis. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). One seeking to establish obviousness based on more than one reference also must articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to combine teachings. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Petitioner that the intrinsic record supports a construction that “presentation data representing content” includes content graphics, including thumbnails, and titles. In particular, the ’273 patent describes an embodiment in which content graphics and titles are “organized to indicate individual presentations.” See Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3, 5:16–18; see also id. at 5:20–23 (“A user may select such a presentation for display by selecting individual presentation for streaming or downloading, such as by clicking on an indicator 235, 240, or 245”); 6:53–56, 7:36–40, 8:58–61, 11:31–34 (“In certain embodiments, the requested information may include a content title, date, series information and description, akin to that to be displayed in a corresponding indicator 240 (FIGS. 2, 3).”). We understand this disclosure to teach that content graphics 230 and content information 240, including titles, is presentation data that represents content. Patent Owner does not point us to any other disclosure of the ’273 patent describing presentation data that represents content. See PO Remand Response Br. 3–15; PO Remand Reply Br. 1–4. We also find Dr. Storer’s testimony to support a finding that content graphics, as used in the ’273 patent, include thumbnails. Ex. 1002 ¶ 127 (“[l]ike the ’273 Patent, Li discloses particular content graphics (thumbnails) and particular content information (titles) representing the data files (e.g. videos) of the first collection.”). And Patent Owner does not dispute that the term “content graphics” as used in the ’273 patent includes thumbnails. See PO Remand Response Br. 3–15; PO Remand Reply Br. 1–4. Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that titles and thumbnails cannot be “presentation data that represents content” because they are metadata. PO Remand Response Br. 10–15. Whether thumbnails and titles not contained in an RSS feed are metadata is immaterial to whether they are “presentation data that represents content.” The Federal Circuit’s holding does not address metadata other than those contained in an RSS feed. Uniloc, 2022 WL 306468. Thus, the Federal Circuit does not explicitly find that metadata are not data representing content. Id. We also do not make such a finding. Because, as discussed above, the only indication from the ’273 patent is that graphics and titles are considered “presentation data that represents content,” we are not persuaded by Patent Owner to limit the term to exclude them.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Li’s thumbnails and titles do not qualify as “presentation data that represents content,” under its proposed construction of the term. Reply 3–5; PO Remand Response Br. 3–15; PO Remand Reply Br. 1–4. However, as explained in detail above, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction of this term. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that Li’s thumbnails and titles qualify as “presentation data that represents content.” We also agree that these data represent videos stored in a content library of database 11, which are part of a computer system. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41, 64, 113; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 128–131. Thus, Li teaches the presentation data limitation. Based on the record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that Li teaches or suggests “storing presentation data that represents content of a first collection of one or more presentations using the computer system.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Li teaches the presentation data limitation of claim 1.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,721,273 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,721,273
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2020-00695 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable, primarily as obvious over the asserted combinations including Okamoto, Shimizu, and Miyahara.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “been knowledgeable regarding conventional designs and fabrication techniques pertaining to LEDs, including LED package designs, and would have had at least 2 years of experience in LED design and fabrication as well as at least a master’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., chemical engineering, materials engineering, or electrical engineering), or alternatively would have an equivalent combination of advanced education and practical experience.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–27). Patent Owner contends that the person of ordinary skill “would have had at least a B.S. degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field, and three years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” Prelim. Resp. 2; Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Patent Owner adds that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience (for example, an M.S. in any of the above fields and two years of practical experience would qualify one as a [person of ordinary skill in the art] (POSITA).” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 67); Ex. 2006 ¶ 25. Both parties appear to be in general agreement regarding the level of skill, and neither party contends that any differences between their proposals would have any effect on our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. Although we encouraged the parties to explain any material differences between the two proposals in post-institution briefing (see Institution Dec. 8), neither party addressed the issue. See generally PO Resp.; Reply; Sur-Reply. We, therefore, adopt a level of ordinary skill that encompasses a person with a degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and the equivalent of several years of experience in designing semiconductor LED packages.” slip op. at 7

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

    “As detailed below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term “lead frame,” as recited in the challenged claims, requires that any component lead provide support to the LED chip. Instead, we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision that “lead frame” in this context means a support structure for providing an interface to a semiconductor die, where the lead frame structure, as a whole, provides the support to the semiconductor die.” slip op. at 10

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

    “would have understood that “white light can be created by combining the three primary colors of light” (PO Resp. 11), we disagree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use one of the three disclosed LEDs (the blue LED) with phosphor to create white light as disclosed by Shimizu. Ex. 1017, 4:50–67. We find, based on Petitioner’s evidence, that “it was common well before the priority date of the ’529 patent to use appropriate phosphors in combination with blue LEDs to create white light.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1007, 246, 248; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–114, 117; Ex. 1006); Ex. 1044, 100:23–103:10 (Dr. Schubert acknowledging that using Shimizu’s phosphor technique was well known and commonly used to create white light at the relevant time).” slip op. at 26

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

    “We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions, the testimonial evidence, and the disclosure of Miyahara, and determine that the record provides substantial evidence supporting Petitioner’s assertions of obviousness of claims 1 and 13 over Miyahara. Because we agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 13 would have been obvious over Miyahara, we do not address whether the claims are anticipated by Miyahara.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 9,240,529 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,240,529
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Synchview Technologies, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · May 28, 2020 · IPR2019-00470 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained denial of institution because the record lacked evidence to determine the scope of “DVR” and whether the prior art met that limitation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”).” slip op. at 5

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

    “In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”). We are unable to conclude, therefore, that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 5

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

    “In summary, the record does not include sufficient information for a determination of the claim scope of “DVR.” It is Petitioner’s burden to show, in the Petition, “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Without such an explanation of Petitioner’s position and supporting evidence, we cannot conduct the necessary factual inquiry for determining whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood in demonstrating that the prior art meets this limitation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962) (reversing the Board’s decision of obviousness because it relied on “what at best are speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims”).” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,788,882
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2020 · IPR2018-01664 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled claim 22 and denied substitute claim 23 because Petitioner proved it obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, Hyatt, Fabio, Mizell, and Park.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 112 supportDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends in response only that “within an operational range” lacks written description support in the original specification. See Mot. Amend Opp. 1–5. We nonetheless agree with Patent Owner that the specification includes written description support for the amended claim language. As Patent Owner notes, the original application discloses “glitch correcting logic 235 further may be used to discard non-human motions” that are nevertheless accurately detectable by the sensor. EX1002, pp. 12-13, ¶ 21. This example is further explained in the context 9 The amended claim also makes several changes addressing clerical issues with original claim 22. See Mot. to Amend, Appendix A (changing “generation motion data” to “generate motion data,” changing “a dominant axis” to “the dominant axis,” and replacing a period in the middle of the claim with “; and.”). of “a device [that] is not being used but is in a moving vehicle.” Id. While the vehicle’s motion is measurable by the sensor, it is considered a glitch that “can be discarded as not fitting the signature of human motion.” Id. Mot. Amend 5; see also Ex. 1001, 3:23–27. In short, we agree with Patent Owner that non-human motions due to a vehicle’s motion would be within the device’s operational range. Petitioner is correct that the specification also includes examples of motion outside the device’s operational range. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:19–23 (describing “a glitch correcting logic which removes abnormal data from the motion data”); id at 6:56–65 (explaining “an excessive number of glitches may indicate a problem with the accelerometer”); id. at 3:33–37 (noting “glitches generally are indicative that the accelerometer or sensor is malfunctioning”). Those examples, however, do not undermine the specification’s additional support for a glitch that is within the device’s operational range. See Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]atentees [are] not required to include within each of their claims all of [the] advantages or features described as significant or important in the written description.”). 3. Responding to a Ground of Unpatentability” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “D. MOTION TO AMEND SUMMARY Because the Motion to Amend is non-contingent, we grant Patent Owner’s motion as to cancellation of issued claim 22. After reviewing the entire record, we determine Patent Owner has satisfied the predicate requirements for considering a motion to amend as to substitute claim 23. However, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of substitute claim 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, Hyatt, Fabio, Mizell, and Park. We therefore deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claim 23. Because Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of substitute claim 23 would have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, Hyatt, Fabio, Mizell, and Park, we do not need to determine whether substitute claim 23 would have been obvious over Petitioner’s alternate asserted grounds involving McMahan in place of Hyatt and Marvit in place of Fabio. In summary: Motion to Amend Outcome Claim(s) Original Claims Canceled by the Amendment 22 Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 23 Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 23 Substitute Claims: Not Reached IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend is denied as to proposed substitute claim 23; FURTHER ORDERED that claim 22 of the U.S. Patent No. 8,872,646 B2 is cancelled; and” slip op. at 28

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

    “Reason to Combine Pasolini and Goldman Petitioner further asserts it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Pasolini’s device to include Goldman’s enhanced accelerometer techniques as a known method “to distinguish static acceleration (due to gravity) from dynamic acceleration (due to movement) when calculating acceleration.” Id. at 20–21 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 68–72). Petitioner explains, with relevant support from its expert, Dr. Essa, that “when analyzing acceleration signals, it is beneficial to factor in calibration, sampling rates, and tilt,” as Goldman teaches, “because the results are more accurate.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 71). Thus, Petitioner explains, combining Pasolini’s device with Goldman’s accelerometer techniques amounts to no more than “using the known techniques of Goldman to improve the similar device of Pasolini in the same way.” Id. at 22. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions in this regard. We conclude Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination of Pasolini and Goldman would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).” slip op. at 18

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

    “In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of substitute claim 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, Hyatt, Mizell, Park, and Fabio. D. MOTION TO AMEND SUMMARY Because the Motion to Amend is non-contingent, we grant Patent Owner’s motion as to cancellation of issued claim 22. After reviewing the entire record, we determine Patent Owner has satisfied the predicate requirements for considering a motion to amend as to substitute claim 23. However, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of substitute claim 23 would have been obvious over the combination of Pasolini, Goldman, Hyatt, Fabio, Mizell, and Park. We therefore deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claim 23. Because Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of substitute claim 23 would have been obvious over Pasolini, Goldman, Hyatt, Fabio, Mizell, and Park, we do not need to determine whether substitute claim 23 would have been obvious over Petitioner’s alternate asserted grounds involving McMahan in place of Hyatt and Marvit in place of Fabio.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,872,646 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,872,646
• C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2018 · IPR2017-01275 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–10, and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious over the Admitted Prior Art and Betts; Petitioner obtained partial adverse judgment on Ground 2.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Ground 2 based on the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), Petitioner filed a Request for Partial Adverse Judgment against itself with respect to Ground 2, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). See Paper 30 (modifying institution decision to institute on all challenged grounds presented in Petition); Paper 33 (Petitioner’s Request for 1 Patent Owner filed two versions of the Preliminary Response: Paper 6, to which access is restricted to the parties and the Board; and Paper 7, a publicly available, redacted version of Paper 6. 2 Patent Owner filed two versions of the Patent Owner Response: Paper 20, to which access is restricted to the parties and the Board; and Paper 21, a publicly available, redacted version of Paper 20. Partial Adverse Judgment as to Ground 2). We granted Petitioner’s Request for Partial Adverse Judgment on July 5, 2018. Paper 36 (granting adverse judgment as to Ground 2).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; 4 Petitioner defines “Admitted Prior Art” as certain portions of the ’641 patent, including Figure 1. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:21–22, Fig. 1; Ex. 1004 ¶ 86). 5 U.S. Patent No. 3,738,497, issued June 12, 1973 (Ex. 1005) (“Betts”). 6 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, took effect on March 18, 2013. Because the application from which the ’641 patent issued was filed before that date, any citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are to their pre-AIA version. prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner relies on the testimony of Alan Anderson, who testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or a similar discipline, or the equivalent experience, with at least two years of experience in the field of aircraft interior design.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposal, or offer a competing proposal for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.7 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on our review of the evidence and arguments, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the Admitted Prior Art lavatory by replacing the flat forward wall with the contoured forward wall of Betts. Petitioner submits convincing argument based on the testimony of Mr. Anderson, that designers of airplane interiors were concerned about adding space to the cabin and that the Betts contoured wall increased interior space. Pet. 22–25 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 57–59). Betts itself backs up this testimony by stating that one of the goals of its design is “to provide more passenger room.” Ex. 1005, Abstract. We also agree with Petitioner’s assertion that Figure 1 of Betts depicts a passenger seat further aft in the cabin than it could have been if the wall were flat with no recess, and merely extended up from the bottom portion of the wall. See Betts Fig. 1; Pet. 23–24. Betts therefore depicts how the contoured wall and recess provide more passenger space when compared to a flat, vertical wall, and Betts discusses the ability of its design to save space. As such, Betts adequately supports the proposed modification of the prior art flat forward wall as shown in the Admitted Prior Art. Patent Owner’s argument that flat forward lavatory walls co-existed with the Betts design for years without modification, even if accurate, does not outweigh the more convincing evidence and argument supporting Petitioner’s position based on Betts and the Anderson Declaration. In addition, Patent Owner’s argument that one would need to “totally deconstruct” Betts in order to add a lavatory to Betts misapprehends Petitioner’s proposed modification. Petitioner proposes to replace a lavatory flat forward wall as shown in the Admitted Prior Art with the Betts contoured wall, not add a lavatory behind the Betts contoured wall. See Pet. 22, 24; Reply 4–5. Although we do not apply collateral estoppel for the reasons provided above, we note that our findings regarding the proposed combination and modification are consistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision in the related case. See B/E Aerospace, 709 F. App’x at 694 (rejecting Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s combination required adding lavatory to Betts). Based on the foregoing, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to modify the lavatory flat forward wall in the Admitted Prior Art by replacing it with the contoured forward wall of Betts.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,073,641 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,073,641
• Google LLC v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02067 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution: it declined review of claims 1–12, 14–17, 25, and 26 under §§ 315(d) and 325(d), and found no reasonable likelihood for claims 13, 18–24, and 27.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly. Moreover, the time of filing of this Petition leads us to conclude that Petitioner gained the benefit of Patent Owner’s preliminary responses in the previous IPRs. Patent Owner filed those responses on September 9, 2017. Three days later Petitioner filed the instant petition. Petitioner, as the party with the knowledge of this fact, failed to allege that it did not gain the benefit of the preliminary responses in previous IPRs. We look to Petitioner to explain its delay in its filing. Petitioner provides no reason here. Finally, although not a dispositive fact, we note that in the previous IPRs, Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion to amend challenged claims of the ’433 patent. This fact raises concerns regarding the complexity and potential for inconsistency inherent in allowing this proceeding to occur in tandem with ongoing trials that arise in large part from the considerable role Zydney plays each proceeding. Further, we are concerned not only with ensuring consistency across multiple trials focused on Zydney, but also with administrative efficiency because significant resources of the Board would be consumed reconciling arguments, issues, and evidence across multiple, independent trials,3 especially in light of the forthcoming motion to amend in the previous IPRs. Cf. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (indicating an agency, when deciding whether to take action in a particular matter, must determine whether its resources are best spent on one matter or another).” slip op. at 9

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “authority, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122, to issue “any appropriate order regarding the additional matter[, i.e., this proceeding,] including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination or any such matter.” See 35 U.S.C. § 315(d). We recognize that in exercising our discretion we determine the proper course of conduct in a proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.5) in a manner consistent with securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)). Here, our exercise of discretion to deny institution under §§ 315(d) and 325(d) is warranted for several reasons. To start with, the previous IPRs and the present Petition rely on Zydney as the primary reference against which the majority of the claim limitations are mapped. Petitioner has proffered no reasoning regarding how it has relied on Zydney in any way that differs materially from the previous IPRs. And Petitioner’s reliance on different secondary references does not remedy this shortcoming. Moreover, Petitioner, here, does not explain whether the secondary references in this case are used in a different manner or add anything materially different to the secondary references used in the previous IPRs. Further, Zydney is being considered on the merits in pending IPRs. In fact, two trials regarding the ’433 patent are ongoing, with Zydney as the hallmark, i.e., a distinctive feature, of those trials. See IPR2017-01427 and IPR2017-01428. Under these circumstances, we look to Petitioner to provide some reason that convinces us to institute yet another trial that features Zydney as prominently as the previously presented IPRs. Again, if there was a manner in which Petitioner here distinguishably relied on Zydney, Petitioner did not proffer that fact explicitly.” slip op. at 9

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

    “likelihood of prevailing with regard to its contention that claim 13 is anticipated by Zydney. In particular, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Zydney’s software agent “displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” This is an anticipation challenge, which requires that the art disclose each and every limitation of the claim, in the same arrangement as claimed. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Board cannot fill in the gaps and consider what an ordinary artisan might supplement or envisage. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1372; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor, 851 F.3d 1270, 1274–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Board is not permitted to “fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.”). The Petition sets forth that Zydney teaches a “selectable control” because the software agent permits a number of distinct modes of communication and that the originator selects a delivery mode, i.e., intercom mode. Pet. 1718. But with regard to the display of the “selectable control,” Petitioner states that “Zydney plainly teaches that its software agent’s user interface displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode based on the connectivity status (e.g., status of the recipient) of an intended recipient.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). In support, the Min Declaration mentions “display” in reference to selecting the recipients, stating, “Once the originator has selected the recipients from the display, Zydney’s system allows the originator to select a delivery option depending on which ‘core state’ the intended recipient is in—online or offline.” Id. This is insufficient support for demonstrating that Zydney discloses the display limitation of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the “instant voice messaging application displays a selectable control for generating an instant voice message using an intercom mode.” Neither the Petition nor the Min Declaration addresses the display of the “selectable control for generating an instant voice message.” At best, the Min Declaration adduces to the display of a list of recipients and their selection. But there is no explanation as to the display of the “selectable control” in Zydney or citation of evidence that Zydney displays any selection such that it can generate a voice message in intercom mode. Without evidence that Zydney discloses the recited “display,” we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Zydney anticipates the claim. Therefore, Petitioner’s contention of unpatentability regarding claim 13 does not meet the reasonable likelihood institution threshold.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,995,433

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.