• Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-00940 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Leaning and over Leaning with Klemets; claims 12–20 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Houh, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its post-institution papers. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’234 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that no construction of “virtual timeline” is necessary. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, as discussed below, the parties’ dispute appears to be about whether the “virtual timeline” identified by Petitioner is used to arrange the requested streamlets, as is also recited in claim 9. We address that argument below. See infra § II.D.10.” slip op. at 13

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

    “On this record, we determine that the recitation “to achieve continuous presentation” is limiting and requires an amount of continuous (uninterrupted) playback/presentation after an upshift or downshift. The specification describes agent controller 702 determining whether to upshift based on a trigger threshold Θup, which itself is based on various factors including a current read ahead margin and a minimum safety margin. See Ex. 1001, 17:44–58. If agent controller 702 can sustain upshift quality, then it will upshift and request higher quality streams. See id. at 17:58–61. Conversely, when an upshift is not possible, agent controller 702 determines whether to downshift based a different threshold Θdown, which itself is based on the same sort of factors. See id. at 18:4–7. When the stream quality is not adequate, it downshifts. See id. at 18:7–14. These disclosures are similar to the language of claim 12, which recites “repeatedly generating a factor indicative of a current ability to receive the digital content at a rate sufficient for presenting the digital content as the digital content is received, . . . wherein the factor relates to a performance of the network” and “making the successive determinations whether to change the requested bit rate based on the factor to achieve continuous presentation of the digital content using the individually-requestable portions of the highest bit rate one of the copies determined receivable at that time.” Ex. 1001, 20:5–16 (emphasis added). That is, claim 12 refers to “achiev[ing] continuous presentation” based on what is “sufficient for presenting the digital content,” trading quality to ensure continuous playback.” slip op. at 14

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

    “server comprises at least two servers and wherein at least one streamlet is requested from a first of the at least one server and at least one other streamlet is requested from a second server of the at least one server other than the first server.” Ex. 1001, 19:7–12. Petitioner references its mapping of the “at least one server” in claim 1 to Leaning’s server 1. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:15–16, 2:18–22, 2:31–32, 5:8–14, Fig. 1), 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:13–26, 9:3–7, 16:6–12), 37; see supra §§ II.D.2.b–c. Petitioner contends that, “[t]o the extent Leaning does not disclose at least two servers wherein one sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a first server and another sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a second server such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of the knowledge of a [an ordinarily skilled artisan].” Id. at 37. Citing the common nature of such an arrangement, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide multiple web servers containing the same sets of sub-files for streams in order to have redundancy in the system and allow for clients to establish connections with multiple servers and request a first sub-file from a first web server and, if the connection between the first web server becomes congested or the first web server otherwise fails or becomes unavailable, request a subsequent sub-file from the second web server. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1012, 108,5 Fig. 4-11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 3. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to implement Leaning’s server 1 as two servers that store different streamlets based on Dr. Houh’s uncontested testimony about system redundancy. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. His testimony is backed by a contemporaneous reference about HTTP that shows requests for different objects from different servers over parallel TCP connections. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 108–09, Fig. 4-11. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 3 would have been obvious over Leaning.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,991,234 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,991,234
• Lenovo (United States), Inc. v. University Of RochesterSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01225 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–7 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8–12 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish asynchronous operation between domains.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “specification is the ‘single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,’ . . . and ‘is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.’” Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Although Patent Owner contends that the Specification disparages systems that impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequencies (PO Resp. 21), we find availing Petitioner’s contention that “[s]upport for Patent Owner’s construction is absent from the specification.” Pet. Reply 10. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s claim construction “appears to be based on a single paragraph of the ’443 patent referring to preexisting ‘synchronization schemes [that] restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies of the clocks.” Id. That is, the only reference by Patent Owner to the Specification is that the Specification states that “Some synchronization schemes restrict the . . . relative frequencies of the clocks, thereby eliminating the need for hardware arbitration [27]. Unfortunately, these schemes impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequences.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:32–36). We agree with Petitioner that such disclosure in the Specification “does not describe how these synchronization schemes ‘restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies’ with any specificity.’” Pet. the Specification that some schemes impose restrictions on the possible choices of frequency is not a disparagement of any system that has limited choices of frequency or would preclude the claims from covering such prior art techniques. Instead, as Petitioner points out, the Specification of the ’443 patent states “[t]he preferred embodiment uses four domains […] so that domains may vary somewhat in size and still be covered by a single clock.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:57–59). As Dr. Baker testified in support of Petitioner’s contention, “the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent relies on a single external master clock that distributes a signal to the local PLL of each domain.” See Ex. 1032 ¶ 9. Thus, although Patent Owner contends that clock signals generated based on a master clock cannot be interpreted to be generated independently of the clock signals generated for others of the plurality of domains (PO Resp. 49), we agree with Petitioner that such claim construction would “exclude[] the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent,” which is disfavored. Pet. Reply 11. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that “changeable independently” of the other domains does not require that the separate clocks in the plurality of domains be globally-asynchronous.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “As both parties recognize, (PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 12), “[actual] [r]eduction to practice in the United States requires that the invention be embodied in tangible form.” Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3d 1243, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, actual reduction to practice requires a showing of the invention in a physical or tangible form that shows every element. not sufficient. See Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, Patent Owner does not provide any evidence showing every element of the claims in physical or tangible form, as required, but rather contends that the Specification refers to the Paper, wherein the Paper stated that simulation using a software, SimpleScalar, was performed. PO Resp. 16. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the SimpleScalar simulation was not an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Pet. Reply 12. As Petitioner points out, claim 1, for example, is directed to a “microprocessor,” wherein “Patent Owner has presented no evidence and has not alleged that any physical microprocessor was ever produced or operated.” Id. at 13; see PO Resp. 15–17. And as Petitioner points out, “Patent Owner has produced no evidence of any physical prototype of the claimed microprocessor that could have validated the simulation.” Pet. Reply 13–14. We agree with Petitioner that, at most, such simulation “demonstrated feasibility for prototyping of a microprocessor,” but not a tangible form of the microprocessor itself as required for an actual reduction to practice. Id. at 14; see also Standard Mfg. Co. v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 1, 67 (1991) (“The feasibility of the optical alignment system may have been proven by the optical mock-up, but the optical mock-up was not a reduction to practice of the proposed MHU–145/M trailer.”).” slip op. at 36

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

    “Here, we find that Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenMixed

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,089,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,089,443
• Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00917 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–18 as obvious over Leaning, and claim 2 as obvious over Leaning and Ala-Honkola.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “continuous playback” This term appears in independent claims 1 and 13. For example, limitation 1D of claim 1 recites “adapting the successive determinations to shift the playback quality based on the factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the streamlets of the highest quality copy of the video that is determined to be sustainable at that time.” Claim 13 recites a similar limitation. Petitioner contends “[t]he claims’ plain language only requires that the shift in playback quality is made ‘to achieve continuous playback.’” Pet. Reply 1 (citing claim 1). According to Petitioner, “shifting quality ‘to achieve continuous playback’ is aspirational, not limiting, language.” Id. (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., 246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Petitioner asserts that “[n]othing in the claims requires uninterrupted playback before, during, or after the shift in quality.” Id.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed

    “continuous playback.” We also do not rely on Exhibit 1045. Accordingly, we consider Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike in this regard to be moot. For these reasons, we do not strike Petitioner’s reply arguments or supporting evidence regarding claim construction. B. Leaning’s Clear Buffer Step Patent Owner alleges Petitioner has shifted its position on reply slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 10,757,156 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,757,156
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00175 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Biswas and Kumar; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–64). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 8–9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The parties submit that no claim construction is necessary. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 15. We have not been presented with the need to construe any claim terms for this Decision. D.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combined teachings of Biswas and Kumar. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have known to use the masking techniques exemplified by Kumar to implement the disclosed operation in Biswas of edge routers providing hosts with port number ranges. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 97–101. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Biswas and Kumar.” slip op. at 13

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

    “This disclosure is inconsistent with any suggestion that the Fangman system, when routing a telephone call to its destination, identifies the private IP address of the destination telephone by determining the port range to which the port number of the destination telephone belongs. When Fangman describes the NAPPT process, it does not indicate that port ranges are used, but rather repeatedly states that port numbers are used: The [service gateway] receives a data packet from the IP device, including a public destination IP address . . . a destination port number . . . and source information, NAPPTs the data packet, using the [public destination IP address] and the [destination port number] to identify the [IP telephone] . . . . Ex. 1024, code (57). Performing NAPPT on the data packet received from the destination may include using the public destination IP address and the destination port number to uniquely identify the IP telephone, and changing the public destination IP address to a private source IP address of the IP telephone while leaving the destination port number unchanged. Ex. 1024, 4:28–33. The SG 170 may maintain a table of semi-permanent mappings of the external IP address and ports to the internal hosts and ports. Ex. 1024, 8:49–51.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,369 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,369
• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00943 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that: On or before 7/12/2017, [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately three years of experience or equivalent study in voice-controlled devices in smart home systems. Additional graduate education could 2 Neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to such objective evidence of nonobviousness. in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 18. We adopted this definition for the purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 4. We again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Absent a recitation of order, or an order mandated by grammar or logic, the steps of a method claim are not construed to require a particular order. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner argues that the steps of claim 1, a method claim, must be performed in sequential order. PO Resp. 13–16. Without commenting on or conceding Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner contends that “the trial grounds meet this proposed construction.” Pet. Reply 24–25; Tr. 8:25–11:16. Our record does not reflect any indication that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring the sequential ordering of the method steps is not at least encompassed by the correct construction of claim 1. Because of this, and because Petitioner agrees that the arguments in the Petition meet this construction, we accept Patent Owner’s construction as correct for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing uses the same sound data to teach the “first sound data” of limitation 1.a and the “second sound data” of limitation 1.c. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s claim 5 describes the determination of a volume threshold based on the volume of the ambient audio signal in which characteristic form(s) (e.g., the name of the user of the media player) are present. Ex. 1006, 13:66–21, 14:28–30. However, the Petition describes using Fu’s “predetermined threshold” in combination with Hart-787’s device, which attenuates audio output of a device upon detecting a user’s utterance intended to gain the attention of the device, in order to “include adjusting the audio output volume of a wirelessly-linked audio-producing device when the voice-controlled device determines that the ambient noise level at the time a Ex. 1004, 2:22–37, 5:61–6:10, 9:18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24, 32, 54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further proposes including a threshold that is advantageously based on the environment in which the device is operating as described in Fu, for example to respond to differing levels of noise at different times of day. Id. at 26, 29–30, 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:42–67, 14:28–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–53, 55, 58, 87, 91, 107–109). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments address the references individually instead of addressing the combination of the teachings proposed in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 8, 13–14; see also Dec. on Inst. 21–22, 23–24, 25–26. The Petition relies upon a combination of elements of Hart-787 with the predetermined threshold as taught in Fu and with establishing such a threshold based on the operating environment of a device as in Rosenberg. Pet. 26–31, 34–41. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s threshold is set at the time of the utterance in Rosenberg’s claim 5 and cites Petitioner’s declarant as “conceding” issues regarding how “Rosenberg’s volume threshold is determined.” PO Resp. 20–21. But this argument and the ostensible concession do not squarely address the proposed combination, which combines Fu’s teaching of an adjustment unit that “compares the volume of the ambient noise received . . . to a predetermined threshold” with Rosenberg’s teaching that such “a threshold may be ‘determined based on the volume of [an] ambient audio signal.’” Pet. 39, 40 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006, 14:28–30). While Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not proposed using a predetermined/pre-set threshold or a previously established threshold based on environmental noise in the combination of Hart-787 with F[u] and Rosenberg” (PO Resp. 46), we find, on the contrary, that the Petition describes a combination based predetermined threshold” and on a threshold “determined according to an environmental noise level.” Pet. 29–30. Thus, we find Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds do not suffer from the issues Patent Owner argues are a consequence of the purported use of the same sound data for the “first sound data” of claim limitation 1.a and for the “second sound data” of claim limitation 1.c. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Fu’s teachings with respect to limitation 1.e’s “transition from a first state having a first volume level to a second state having a second volume level that is less than the first volume level” because these arguments similarly do not address the proposed combination. See PO Resp. 26–30. The Petition cites Hart-787 for attenuating the volume of an audio-producing device when a wake word is issued. Pet. 32–34, 43–44. The Petition cites Fu for adjusting volume of an audio-producing device if the level of ambient noise exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at 36–39, 44–45. Thus, even if Fu teaches only increasing the volume of an audio-producing device if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, the Petition relies on the combination of teachings of Hart-787 and Fu, and Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference teaches “decreasing a controllable appliance’s volume output when a previously established volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) does not address the combination proposed. Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner has not proposed modifying Fu to decrease a controllable appliance’s volume output when a volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) similarly does not address the combination proposed in the Petition. We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references. transmitted volume down control signals as the means for attenuating audio output, Petitioner contends that Hart-787 “broadly teaches” that a device transmits control command signals to the audio-producing device, relying on the testimony of its declarant. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82), 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:67–2:7, 2:26–27, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). In addition, Petitioner shows that these control signals were well-known in the art and would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, supporting its showing with additional testimony from its declarant. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 10183, 2:39–47, 5:35–38; Ex. 10194 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 118). We conclude Petitioner’s evidence regarding the showing in Hart-787 is sufficient with respect to this point. Hart-787 describes altering a signal sent to the speaker to attenuate the audio from that speaker. Ex. 1004, 1:67– 2:1. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that using transmitted control signals to do this would have been known to one of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 82, 118. We consider Petitioner’s evidence regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Hart-787’s disclosure to be sufficient for the showing regarding the “causing one or more commands to be automatically issued to the controllable appliance to thereby cause” that appliance to transition to a lower volume level, as required in limitation 1.e. While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant “concede[s] that Hart- 787 does not disclose or teach how its voice-controlled device decreases the audio output of the controllable appliance,” the cited portion of the” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,930,276 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,930,276
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00882 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Ji and Sarafa; the Board did not reach the Ji, Sarafa, and Oh ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that the arguments in sub-section 2 on pages 8–9 of Petitioner’s Reply are improper new arguments. Rather, we find these arguments properly elaborate on the Petition, in response to the proposed construction of “link” in Patent Owner’s Response. Although we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not include the phrase “quoted message identifier,” Sarafa explains that the quoted message cited in the Petition and the “quoted message identifier” are part of the same message package. E.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 83. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s citation of the quoted message in the Petition and then the quoted message identifier in the Reply is like if I have a patent to some kind of car and someone points to a Porsche and says, look, the Porsche has an engine, and then we argue about an engine, and then they come back and say, well, we're referring to the turbo charger in the engine in their reply, even though they never mention turbo charger, and said that's the key, it's like, well, we weren't on notice of that. Tr. 71:2–9. We find this unpersuasive. Patent Owner does not explain why a reply that cites a subcomponent of an item cited in the petition would necessarily go beyond properly elaborating on the arguments in the petition.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner’s proposed definition reasonable and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill identified by Petitioner. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of skill it identifies differs very little from Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, and our analysis below would be the same under either party’s identified level of skill.” slip op. at 16

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

    “In order to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute, we only need to resolve whether the correct construction of “link” requires using an address specifically (rather than data generally) to “point to” a message. We find the record lacks persuasive support for such a construction. Looking to the ’198 patent itself first, neither the claims nor the Specification says anything about “point[ing] to” a message or another resource. See generally Ex. 1001. The ’198 patent mentions “address” only once, and that passage refers to a person’s address, not a message’s address. Id. at 12:29–33. Additionally, Patent Owner does not cite any other intrinsic evidence, such as the prosecution history of the ’198 patent, supporting a construction of “link” requiring a message’s address. See, e.g., PO Resp. 10–12; PO Sur-reply 2–7.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ji and Sarafa. As explained below, Petitioner persuades us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Ji teaches automatic scrolling, and that Sarafa’s automatic scrolling would have beneficially complemented Ji’s. Pet. 21–22; Pet. Reply 14–17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–77; Ex. 1018 ¶ 47. Additionally, regardless of whether Ji teaches automatic scrolling in paragraph 92, Petitioner persuades us that Ji and Sarafa address similar problems related to tracking and understanding convoluted conversations in messaging systems. See Pet. 16–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64, 65, 70, 73, 74. As Dr. Cockburn testifies, Ji emphasizes the problem that users cannot quickly find and understand messages in complicated message streams. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 2); Pet. 16. Petitioner also persuades us that Sarafa addresses such problems, at least in part, by expressly teaching certain advantages of its scroll-back feature, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it advantageous to add Sarafa’s scroll-back feature to Ji’s system. See Pet. 18–19; 21–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. For example, addressing the same problems discussed in Ji, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature would facilitate a user’s ability to understand a complicated conversation because “[m]aking available the context of a quoted message may benefit a user in understanding a quoted message by providing messages that were displayed before and/or after the quoted message so as to play the quoted message in context.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 90; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Similarly, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature “provid[es] additional context to users . . . , improving the user experience of quoted messages for its users.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 23; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. We find that these disclosed benefits would have provided compelling motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Sarafa’s scroll back feature to Ji’s messaging system. Pet. 19–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73–77. Indeed, as Dr. Cockburn explains, “[s]ince Ji also quotes the original message in the reply, Sarafa would therefore be a natural complement to Ji.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 77.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,860,198 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,860,198
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Cellect, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00512 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as obvious over Swift, Ricquier, and Suzuki; the Board did not reach the alternative ground involving Larson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party identifies any material differences between a skill level corresponding to approximately two years of professional experience in the field of imaging devices and approximately three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices, or any difference in the field of imaging devices and the field of visible optical imaging devices. On this record, there is none. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is at the level of one who would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or a related field, and approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices.6 This definition is consistent with the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 6 We do not adopt Petitioner’s inclusion of the qualifier “minimum,” to keep the specified level of skill more definite.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also are guided by the principle that we only construe claim terms if, and to the extent that, it is necessary for this proceeding. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party requests the construction of any claim term. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 12. Further, we do not find that any claim term requires express construction. III.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Neikirk’s testimony is rational, and we credit his testimony over the testimony of Patent Owner’s inventor, who provides no explanation as to why it was purportedly unexpected that, as compared to CCD devices, a CMOS imager with remotely located processing circuitry requires no RFI shielding. For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not established that the alleged unexpected result would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Further, even assuming the alleged unexpected result truly would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan, Patent Owner has not shown sufficient nexus between the unexpected result and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, there is no presumption of nexus, and Patent Owner has not separately proved the required nexus for the alleged licensing and commercial success. Thus, there is not a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence of licensing and the patented invention.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,186,052 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,186,052
• Daimler AG / Daimler North America Corporation et al. v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00458 · APJ Carl L Silverman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense; claims 1, 3–7, and 20 are also unpatentable over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner proposes that the term, “sharing the information,” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which Patent Owner argues is “completing delivery to a destination” as information is not “shared” until the information has completed delivery to a destination. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends the claim language and the specification describe the actual delivery of information to the local bulletin board. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:27–31, 12:33–35). Petitioner contends Patent Owner’s proposed meaning is unreasonably narrow and proposes, instead, that the term “should be construed as ‘making the information available to another process,’ consistent with its plain meaning.” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 29). Petitioner observes the challenged claims do not recite delivery into a second process, and 7 Petitioner refers to the ’843 patent; in context, it is clear the reference is intended to be to the ’705 patent. additionally notes claim 1 of the related ’843 patent merely requires “sharing the information” and it is not until dependent claim 16 of the ’843 patent that “sharing” further includes “providing the information.” Id. Petitioner contends the doctrine of claim differentiation further supports its proposed claim construction. Id. Petitioner contends this claim construction is consistent with the Specification in which information is shared by placing the information on a bulletin board. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis and agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sharing the information” is “making the information available to another process.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have at least an undergraduate degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, and at least two years relevant experience in industry.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 48. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with course work or research in embedded networking technologies or an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at least two years of relevant work experience in industry. Ex. 2004 ¶ 12. Based upon our review of the ’705 patent and the prior art of record, we find Dr. Miller’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art reasonable, and adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Patent Owner contends there is no basis for combining Posadas and Stewart to arrive at the invention of claim 1. PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30, 33). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner provides no explanation why a skilled artisan would have combined Posadas’s blackboard system with Stewart’s non-blackboard system. Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34– 39). Petitioner contends a blackboard is simply a specific type of shared memory and the operations described by Stewart are fundamental features that could apply to any shared memory environment, e.g., determining whether memory is available before writing is a basic process that is not specific to any memory architecture. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 57–60). According to Petitioner, Stewart’s spin locks were well–known, simple tools to access shared memory and application to Posadas would have been straightforward. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97–99). We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,209,705 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,705
• Bose Corporation v. Freebit AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00130 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Berg, Varming, and Aber; claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over those references and Marshall.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner and argues that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree in audiology or hearing science and at least three years of experience with developing earphone and hearing instrument products.” PO Resp. 26. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ proposals, and the parties do not contend that any such difference has an impact on this proceeding. In any case, our findings and conclusions are the same under either party’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s theory of obviousness, however, is that the prior art renders the challenged claims obvious even under Patent Owner’s narrower constructions. Pet. 37–39; Reply 4. For example, Petitioner argues: What they are saying is that the curvature, this new curvature that they have put into that C-shaped pad has to itself engage and fit closely, in other words touch the concha of the ear. We think that this is a narrow interpretation. When you look at the claim language, we are not really seeing support, Your Honor, for that particular narrow construction. And yet, what we are saying is that nonetheless, if we were to adopt that narrow construction, the prior art renders it obvious. Tr. 7:8–15. Petitioner does not have a theory of obviousness under broader constructions, should we find that the challenged claims are not rendered obvious under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Reply 4; Tr. 7:16– 9:2. Accordingly, we evaluate Petitioner’s allegations under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, and need not determine whether the proper constructions should be broader to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “one problem with each of Mauney, Feldman, and Berg, “Varming does not identify the protrusion intended to penetrate into the ‘void or cavity’ of a user’s ear as a drawback of any one of these three devices.” Reply 6–7. We agree with Petitioner. As to Mauney and Feldman, Varming identifies protrusions that enter the ear canal as problematic because they block ambient sound and perspiration. Ex. 1005, 1:23–27, 2:1–6. As to Berg, Varming states that Berg’s large C-shaped pad interferes with the crus of helix, at least for those users with “a distinct and emphasized Crus of Helix,” causing discomfort or preventing the device from staying fixed in the ear. Id. at 2:20–23. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Varming does not identify interference with the crus of helix at the front of the ear as a problem in any of the three references it discusses in its background. Petitioner also points out that “Varming teaches quite the opposite, because its own device ‘penetrates’ into the void or cavity at the front of a user’s ear.” Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:8–12 (“a first one of the pads being shaped and positioned to fit into the area of the Cymba Concha by penetration from the area below the Inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix”), 8:23–25 (“The pads are formed as one penetrating the area in the Cymba Concha from the area below the inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix.”)). After considering Varming’s background discussion and the description of its own invention, we are not persuaded that Varming’s discussion of Berg’s interference with the crus of helix refers to interference at the front of the ear. Rather, Varming clearly describes a device that protrudes into the void or cavity at the front of the ear, a fact that undermines Patent Owner’s argument and the testimony of Dr. Staab.” slip op. at 30

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

    “As noted in the Institution Decision, however, Petitioner does not propose simply incorporating groove 18 from Aber into Berg’s C-shaped earpiece. Dec. 22. Cf. In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Rather, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have modified Berg’s C-shaped earpiece by adding a groove at the location of the gap specified in Varming. Pet. 31–32. As Dr. Casali observes, “Aber teaches a known alternative feature for accommodating ridges of the outer ear, which include the extension of the crus of helix.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. According to Dr. Casali, “as a result of this modification, the concha-facing contact surface of earpiece 10 would substantially conform to the concha and enable the ear unit to fit closely against the concha when the ear unit is positioned into the ear.” Id. ¶ 71. We find Dr. Casali’s testimony credible and persuasive. As Dr. Casali notes (Ex. 1003 ¶ 71), Berg states that groove 18 partially embracing the crus of helix “assist[s] in firmly retaining the audiophone in place in the ear” and provides “a much greater area of contact between the cap 14 and the ear than is commonly found in devices of this kind, which results in less strain on the ear.” Ex. 1006, 1:75–83. We find that Aber provides a teaching that a groove embracing a ridge of the ear helps hold a device in place in the ear and find that this teaching would have been applicable to Berg’s earpiece. Because the extension of the crus of helix at the location of Varming’s gap is less pronounced than the crus of helix at the front of the ear, a groove at Varming’s gap providing the benefits expressly specified by Aber would be correspondingly less pronounced. Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,976,995 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,976,995
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661

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.